Fenton v. Farmers & Merchants National Bank

65 S.W. 199, 27 Tex. Civ. App. 231, 1901 Tex. App. LEXIS 252
Court of Appeals of Texas·Decided November 20, 1901·Published·Cited by 9 cases

Opinion

COLLABD, Associate Justice.

The court below sustained a general demurrer to the suit of plaintiff below, appellant in this court, from which this appeal is taken. The suit was brought in the District Court, of McLennan County by W. T. Fenton and D. T. Bomar against appellee, the Farmers and Merchants National Bank. The petition shows that on the 3d day of March, 1899, the defendant bank recovered judgment in the District Court of McLennan County against plaintiff Fenton, Joshua A. Graham, and Mrs. Lucretia Schuster for three-fourths undivided interest in certain lands in Sterling County, upon condition that it pay into the registry of the court for the use and benefit of said! Fenton, Graham, and Schuster, within ninety days from the date of the *232 judgment, $9964.62, with interest thereon at 6 per cent per annum from the date of the judgment, and that the judgment provided as follows: “It is further ordered, adjudged, and decreed by the court that in the event the plaintiff, the bank, shall fail to pay said sum of money, as hereinbefore provided, within the time prescribed, together with interest, then and in that event it is ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the plaintiff [the bank], without further order of this court, take nothing by its said suit against defendants W. T. Fenton, J. A. Graham, and Mrs. Lucretia Schuster, and that said defendants recover -of and from said plaintiff all costs by them in this behalf incurred, and that they be forever quieted in their title and possession to said lands above named, as against the plaintiff in this suit;” that both parties appealed from the judgment, filing appeal bonds to the Court of Civil Appeals for the Third Supreme Judicial District of Texas, at Austin; that both appeals were duly presented, and the Court of Civil Appeals at Austin reversed and remanded the cause on the 3d day of January, 1900; that both parties filed motions for a rehearing, and the motion by Fenton, Graham, and Schuster was overruled, and the motion' by the bank was granted, and the judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals theretofore entered was set aside, and judgment of the District Court duly affirmed, on the 21st day of March, 1900; that both parties to the appeal filed in the Supreme Court of the State separate applications for writs of error to the judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals, each of Which was, by the Supreme Court of the State, duly refused on the 31st of May, 1900. (Copies of the judgments referred to as exhibits are made a part of the petition.)

It is further alleged that about the 5th day of March, 1899, solid Graham and Mrs. Schuster, joined by her husband, conveyed to D. T. Domar their interests in the lands described in the decree of the Court of Civil Appeals; that the mandate was returned and filed in the trial -court July 7, 1900, and the money referred to was paid to the clerk of the District Court of McLennan County, B. H. Kendall, and by him deposited in the First National Bank of Waco, certificate of deposit taken, and the deposit transferred by the clerk to the Waco State Bank of Waco, in November, 1900, where it is now standing in the name of the present clerk of the court, and plaintiffs have refused to accept the money; that on the 17th day of July, 1900, the defendant bank deposited with the clerk of said District Court the sum of $10,785.50, the amount being the sum provided to be paid by said decree, with interest to said date; that more than ninety days elapsed between the rendition of said judgment and the deposit of said money, and more than ninety days between the affirmance of said judgment by the Court of Civil Appeals and the deposit of said money, but less than ninety days elapsed between the refusal of the writ of error by the Supreme Court and the payment of said money into court.

It is then alleged that petitioners are the owners of the title and, in possession of the said land described in said judgment; that defendant *233 ■claims to be the owner and entitled to the possession of the land under said judgment, and has obtained from the clerk of said District Court ■a writ of possession for the land and is about to place it in the hands ■of the sheriff of Sterling County, who will undertake to execute the •same and oust plaintiff from the possession of the premises. Prayer for judgment quieting plaintiffs in the title and possession of the land, ■and for injunction” restraining defendant from executing said judgment, and such other relief, etc.

The court below sustained a general demurrer to the foregoing petition as before stated, and plaintiffs refusing to amend, judgment was rendered in favor of the bank that it go hence and recover its costs, etc., from which plaintiffs have appealed.

The original judgment was that the bank recover of W. T. Fenton, Joshua A. Graham, and Lucretia Schuster an undivided three-fourths of the land upon condition that it pay into court in ninety days $9964.62; and the bank at the same time recovered judgment against D. T. Bomar, A. N. and N. Schuster, A. Judson Cole, Mrs. Luda Cole, and Florence King on their disclaimers. The disclaimers did not appeal. Only Fenton, Graham, and Schuster appealed, and the bank.

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

Fenton v. Farmers & Merchants National Bank, 65 S.W. 199, 27 Tex. Civ. App. 231, 1901 Tex. App. LEXIS 252 (Tex. Ct. App. 1901).

65 S.W. 199 (Fenton v. Farmers & Merchants National Bank) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

JOHN F. GRANT LUMBER COMPANY v. Bell
302 S.W.2d 714 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1957)
City of Vernon v. Superior Court
241 P.2d 243 (California Supreme Court, 1952)
Tolbert v. Mobley
96 S.W.2d 109 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1936)
Continental Gin Co. v. Thorndale Mercantile Co.
254 S.W. 939 (Texas Commission of Appeals, 1923)
Morgan v. Williams
95 So. 611 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1922)
Hume v. Moore
204 S.W. 381 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1918)
Fain v. McCain
199 S.W. 889 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1917)
Pickel v. Pickel
158 S.W. 8 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1913)