Houston Oil Co. of Tex. v. Goodrich

Supreme Court

Houston Oil Co. of Tex. v. Goodrich

245 U.S. 440, 38 S. Ct. 140, 62 L. Ed. 385, 1918 U.S. LEXIS 2146

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedJanuary 7, 1918

Docket76

StatusPublished

Cited by17 cases

This text of 245 U.S. 440 (Houston Oil Co. of Tex. v. Goodrich) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Houston Oil Co. of Tex. v. Goodrich, 245 U.S. 440, 38 S. Ct. 140, 62 L. Ed. 385, 1918 U.S. LEXIS 2146 (1918).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice McReynolds

delivered the opinion of the court.

After hearing arguments upon the issues involved in this cause it seems clear that the writ of certiorari was improvidently granted and must be dismissed. Furness, Withy & Co. v. Yang-Tsze Ins. Assn., 242 U. S. 430:

The controversy (presented in an action at law) is over title to a tract of land in Texas. Both parties claim under one Felder — petitioners through a deed said to have been *441 executed June 10, 1839, and respondents through one dated June 18, 1839.

As grounds for granting the writ petitioners alleged that the trial court erred in refusing to submit to the jury (1) whether the deed first dated was in fact executed (2) whether it was presented for record before execution of the later one (3) whether vendee, in the junior deed was a bona fide purchaser for value (4) whether the junior deed was forged and (5) whether the action was barred by the three years statute of limitations. The propriety of submitting these matters depended essentially upon an appreciation of the evidence. Having heard it all the trial court concluded there was not enough in support of any one of petitioners’ above stated claims to warrant a finding in their favor and the Circuit Court of Appeals reached the same result. 226 Fed. Rep. 434.

The record discloses no sufficient reason within the rule long observed why we should review the judgment below. Forsyth v. Hammond, 166 U. S. 506.

Dismissed.

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

Mr. Justice McReynolds

delivered the opinion of the court.

After hearing arguments upon the issues involved in this cause it seems clear that the writ of certiorari was improvidently granted and must be dismissed. Furness, Withy & Co. v. Yang-Tsze Ins. Assn., 242 U. S. 430:

The controversy (presented in an action at law) is over title to a tract of land in Texas. Both parties claim under one Felder — petitioners through a deed said to have been *441 executed June 10, 1839, and respondents through one dated June 18, 1839.

As grounds for granting the writ petitioners alleged that the trial court erred in refusing to submit to the jury (1) whether the deed first dated was in fact executed (2) whether it was presented for record before execution of the later one (3) whether vendee, in the junior deed was a bona fide purchaser for value (4) whether the junior deed was forged and (5) whether the action was barred by the three years statute of limitations. The propriety of submitting these matters depended essentially upon an appreciation of the evidence. Having heard it all the trial court concluded there was not enough in support of any one of petitioners’ above stated claims to warrant a finding in their favor and the Circuit Court of Appeals reached the same result. 226 Fed. Rep. 434.

The record discloses no sufficient reason within the rule long observed why we should review the judgment below. Forsyth v. Hammond, 166 U. S. 506.

Dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

245 U.S. 440, 38 S. Ct. 140, 62 L. Ed. 385, 1918 U.S. LEXIS 2146, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/houston-oil-co-of-tex-v-goodrich-scotus-1918.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack