Conn v. Southwestern Settlement & Development Co.

222 S.W. 612, 1920 Tex. App. LEXIS 644
CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedMay 4, 1920
DocketNo. 526.
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 222 S.W. 612 (Conn v. Southwestern Settlement & Development Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Conn v. Southwestern Settlement & Development Co., 222 S.W. 612, 1920 Tex. App. LEXIS 644 (Tex. Ct. App. 1920).

Opinion

WALKER, J.

This suit was instituted by the Southwestern Settlement & Development Company and others, as plaintiffs, against Amos L. Ponder and others, as defendants, in an action of trespass to try title to recover the title and possession of the Samuel -J. Withey 'survey in Orange county, Tex. As sole devisee and independent executrix of the estate of R. C. Conn, deceased, Mrs. S. N. Conn made herself a party to this suit. Amos L. Ponder answered by a cross-action against Mrs. Conn, claiming to own the southwest one-fourth of this survey. She answered this cross-action, as cross-defendant. The case was tried on the following agreement:

“Come now the parties here by and through their attorneys of record, and agree that the plaintiffs herein own all of the S. J. Withey survey in Orange county, Texas (described in the pleadings of the parties herein) unless the defendants or some one or more of them have acquired title to said survey or a part thereof under the statutes of limitation of this state.”

All the matters in controversy were settled by agreement, except the contest -between Ponder and Mrs. Conn over tlie southwest one-fourth. This was tried by the court without a jury, and judgment was rendered for Amos L. Ponder against Mrs. Conn for the title and possession of the said southwest one-fourth. From this judgment she has duly perfected her appeal by writ of error.

In our discussion of this ease we will refer to Mrs. Conn as appellant, and to Amos L. Ponder as appellee.

On motion of appellant, the trial court filed the following conclusions of fact:

“1. That the land in controversy, being the southwest one-fourth (%) of the Samuel J. Withey survey, in Orange county, Texas, was known throughout all of the period of the transactions before the court in this ■ cause by all of the parties dealing therewith and by the public generally as the Jack Ballard survey of 160 acres.
“2. That the land in controversy was pat- *613 exited by tbe state of Texas to Samuel J. Wdth-ey on April 3, A. D. 1841.
“3. That in the year 1894 Ben Hollis purchased the southwest one-fourth of the Samuel J. Withey survey kpown as the Jack Ballard 160-acre survey, and immediately moved his family onto the same; there being a good house and 15 or 20 acres of land in a state of cultivation on said survey.
“4. That Ben Hollis resided upon said land, claiming, cultivating, using, and enjoying the same from the date he purchased the same until about November, A. D. 1895, when he sold the same to Jesse Gentry, Sr., which sale was subsequently evidenced by a conveyance executed Ben Hollis and wife to Jesse Gentry, Sr., dated July 26, A. D. 1906.
“5. That Jesse Gentry, Sr., resided upon, cultivated, used, and enjoyed said land, claiming the same from November, 1895, to and including the year 1908, when he conveyed the same to his son, Jesse Gentry, Jr.
“6. That after 1908 up to 1916 the said Jesse Gentry, Sr., continued to reside upon said land, cultivating, using, and enjoying the same, believing the same to be his property, but in the name of his son, Jesse.
“7. That during the period from 1895 to 1916 the said Jesse Gentry, Sr., paid all taxes due on the land in controversy.”
“8. That on September 26, 1908, Jesse Gentry, Sr., conveyed the Withey survey to Jesse Gentry, Jr., which deed was filed on the same day.
4“9. That on December 15, 1908, Jesse Gentry, Jr., conveyed the Sam J. Whitney section No. 11 to W. H. Gentry, which deed was filed for record October 15, 1914.
“10. That on September 21, 1911, Jesse Gentry, Jr., by his duly authorized attorney, Leslie B. Ponder, conveyed to Amos L. Ponder the southwest one-fourth of Samuel J. Withey survey. This deed was first filed for record September 22, 1911, and recorded in Book 9, page 304, Deed Records of Orange County, Texas, at which time the same was not acknowledged. Subsequently this deed was properly acknowledged, and again filed for record on May 10, 1918, and recorded in Book 28, page 21, Deed Records of Orange County, Texas.
“11. That the said Amos L. Ponder paid the sum of 82,000 for said land, and made inquiry at the time of the clerk of the county court of Orange county, Texas, who informed him that the records of his office showed the title to said land to be in Jesse Gentry, Jr.
“12. That the said Amos L. Ponder was an innocent purchaser for value and without notice of the said deed from Jesse Gentry, Jr., to W. H. Gentry, dated December 15, 1908, aud knew nothing of th.e claim of said W. H. Gentry or any other person, to said land.
“13. That during the year 1911, the said W. H. Gentry resided at Vidor, Texas, and not upon the land in controversy. Dux-ing said year Jesse Gentry, Sr., and a Mr. Chapman, who was a tenant of Jesse Gentry, Sr., were the only ones residing upon said land.
“14. That during 1912, and subsequent thereto, W. H. Gentry resided upon the northeast one-fourth of the S. J. Withey survey, and has not been in possession of any portion of the southwest one-fourth of the Withey survey.
“15. That during a portion, of the time prior to 1908, the said W. H. Gentry lived with his father, Jesse Gentry, Sr., on this land.. During this time he was a member of his father’s family, and made no claim as against his father to any portion of this land.
“16. That from the year 1906 to 1909, inclusive, W. H. Gentry was away from said land and had no tenant on the same.
“17. That on January 28, 1913, by deed filed March 4, 1913, W. H. Gentry conveyed to R. C. Conn the land in controversy. The only consideration paid for this conveyance was a load of wire fencing which was to.be used in building a fence on said land, which was for the use and benefit of R. C. Conn.
“18. That on August 15, 1913, by deed filed August 27, 1913, Wi. H. Gentry conveyed to R. C. Conn the entire S. J. Withey survey of 649 acres, less the land of the northeast one-fourth. The only consideration paid for this conveyance was $109.
“19. That the deed offered in evidence from Jesse Gentry, Sr., to W. H. Gentry, purporting to convey the Withey survey dated August 12, 1913, and filed for record August 27, 1913, was not executed by Jesse Gentry, Sr., nor under or by virtue of his authority or consent.
“20. That the S. J. Withey survey would cut 4,000 feet of pine timber per acre, and the southwest one-fourth of said survey would cut 300,000 feet of pine timber valued at $2.50 per thousand, in 1913, and the land was valued at $2 per acre.”

Prom these conclusions of fact, it results that judgment was properly rendered for Amos L. Ponder for two reasons: First. Because the deed from Jesse Gentry, Jr., to VV. H. Gentry, dated December 15, 1908, conveyed the Sam J. Whitney survey, and not the Samuel J. Withey survey.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Briggs v. State
211 S.W.2d 180 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1948)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
222 S.W. 612, 1920 Tex. App. LEXIS 644, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/conn-v-southwestern-settlement-development-co-texapp-1920.