Farley v. McAlister

39 Tex. 602
CourtTexas Supreme Court
DecidedJuly 1, 1873
StatusPublished

This text of 39 Tex. 602 (Farley v. McAlister) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Texas Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Farley v. McAlister, 39 Tex. 602 (Tex. 1873).

Opinion

Walker, J.

This is a suit between certain judgment creditors of Alexander McAlister and John McAlister, in which the judgment creditors seek to set aside a deed for • five hundred and fifty acres of land sold and deeded by Alexander to John McAlister before the, rendition of the-judgments. It does not appear that these judgment debts were contracted until after the making of the deed.

This deed appears to have been left in the proper office - either for record or some other purpose which does not distinctly appear at the time of its execution. If left for' the purpose of record, it became notice to all subsequent' purchasers and lien holders.

But these judgment creditors do not stand upon any better equities than if they had sold the land and-purchased it in for their judgments. They have paid noth- ' ing for this land, they have parted with no pecuniary consideration, and therefore are not entitled to priority as bona fide purchasers for a valuable consideration, without notice. (Ayres v. Dupree, 27 Texas, 593; Orme v. Roberts, 33 Texas, 772; Rogers v. Burchard, 34 Texas, 452, and subsequent cases.)

The statute protecting creditors against prior unre- • [604]*604corded conveyances cannot mean to place a judgment creditor in any better position when he obtains his judgment than he is in after the land has been sold and he buys it in on his judgment. Such an interpretation of ■the law would have no foundation in reason or justice to • stand on.

Very many authorities may be citéd in support of this doctrine: Jackson v. Tom., 4 Cowen, 599; Jackson v. Post, 9 Cowen, 120; 15 Wend., 588; Coleman v. Cook, 6 Randolph, 618; Ash v. Livingstone, 2 Bay, 80; Massey v. McIlvane, 2 Hill, 426; Orth v. Jennings, 8 Black., 420; Jackson v. Dubois, 4 Johnson, 216; Cover v. Black, 1 Barr, 493; Rogers v. Gibson, 4 Yates, 111; Heister v. Fortner, 1 Binney, 40.

These authorities settle the question involved in this case.

We think the judgment of the court is correct, and is therefore affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

Related

Ayres v. Duprey
27 Tex. 593 (Texas Supreme Court, 1864)
Orme v. Roberts
33 Tex. 768 (Texas Supreme Court, 1871)
Rodgers v. Burchard
7 Am. Rep. 283 (Texas Supreme Court, 1871)
Jackson ex dem. Merrick v. Post
15 Wend. 588 (New York Supreme Court, 1836)
Orth v. Jennings
8 Blackf. 420 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1847)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
39 Tex. 602, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/farley-v-mcalister-tex-1873.