Home/Fifth Circuit/Margaret O'BOyle v. John R. Bevil, Jr.

Margaret O'BOyle v. John R. Bevil, Jr.

259 F.2d 506
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedNovember 7, 1958
Docket17158_1
StatusPublished
Cited by23 cases

This text of 259 F.2d 506 (Margaret O'BOyle v. John R. Bevil, Jr.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Margaret O'BOyle v. John R. Bevil, Jr., 259 F.2d 506 (5th Cir. 1958).

Opinions

TUTTLE, Circuit Judge.

This suit was filed in the district court as a proceeding in equity to remove as an alleged cloud upon plaintiffs’ titles two Texas state court judgments, and to enjoin their enforcement by defendants. The state court judgments were obtained by John R. Bevil, Sr., the ancestor and predecessor in interest of the defendants in this case, against the plaintiffs in the instant case. Involved in this suit are the issues of whether plaintiffs alleged a title or interest in [508]*508the land in question in the state court suits sufficient to enable them to challenge those judgments and whether the judgments can be successfully attacked in this proceeding.

The case was tried after motion to dismiss, converted into motion for summary judgment, was denied. The court entered judgment for the defendants, concluding that the plaintiffs had no right, title or interest in the lands involved in the state court judgments and further that such judgments were not fraudulently obtained; plaintiffs had not been deprived of due process of law; the judgments appearing valid on their face import absolute verity and could not be set aside; and the four year Texas statute of limitations1 was a bar to every cause of action asserted by plaintiffs. From this judgment plaintiffs have appealed.

Before discussing the propriety of the district court’s orders and judgment it will be necessary to review the allegations, facts and posture of the parties in some detail.

Prior to 1919 John R. Bevil, Sr., the ancestor of the present defendants, and W. D. Myers owned in common the lands known as the Joel E. Hawley League, situated in Hardin County, Texas. By a partition deed of September 11, 1919, in evidence in this case, Bevil and Myers divided the League with Bevil obtaining title to the north 2325.5 varas, measured out to some 2049 acres.

On September 22, 1924, John R. Bevil, Sr. executed a deed to Texas Littré Farms Co., an Ohio corporation, stating a cash consideration of $10,000. The deed described the land conveyed as follows:

“Being Seven Hundred and ten (710) acres of land out of the north half of the Joel E. Hawley League hereinafter described by Lot Number according to the map of a subdivision of the said Joe E. Haw-ley League, of record in Vol. 22, page 92 of the Deed Records of Hardin County, Texas, to which reference is hereby made.” 2

Then followed a naming by number of the specific lots conveyed. The specific map referred to in the deed and recorded in the Deed Records of Hardin County, Texas, does not show a lot bearing each number contained in the deeds. The subdivision is divided into lots with number one in the northeast corner, number two adjacent to number one to the west and the numbers continuing in order to number 21 which is in the northwest corner of the plot. Number 22 is directly south of number 21 and the rest of the numbered lots continue east and west alternately through the plot. In approximately the center of the plot there is a large area of land shown on the map which is not subdivided into lots and not numbered. But the numbering sequence on the recorded map is interrupted in such a way that this plot could be divided into equal sized lots and numbered perfectly to fit in with the other numbered lots if the same pattern and sequence of numbering is followed. For example, in the fourth row of lots from the north the blank space is bounded by lot 66 on the west and 78 on the east, allowing the 11 missing numbers to be placed in the unnumbered area with each lot of a size equal to the remaining lots. This method of supplying the missing numbers can be accomplished in each row of the plot, with the result that the total area would then consist of numbered lots in the proper sequence. A picture of this recorded plat is annexed in order to make clearer our description of it.

[509]

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

Related

Dispensa v. University State Bank
987 S.W.2d 923 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1999)
Conaway v. Lopez
880 S.W.2d 448 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1994)
Charles T. Conaway v. Jose Lopez
Court of Appeals of Texas, 1994
Dryden v. Calk
771 F. Supp. 181 (S.D. Texas, 1991)
May v. United States
572 F. Supp. 725 (W.D. Missouri, 1983)
Verone Marin Fehlhaber, Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross v. Robert F. Fehlhaber, Defendant-Appellant-Cross
681 F.2d 1015 (Fifth Circuit, 1982)
United States v. Truckee-Carson Irrigation District
649 F.2d 1286 (Ninth Circuit, 1981)
Roberts v. Roberts
525 S.W.2d 268 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1975)
Crow v. Crow
485 S.W.2d 928 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1972)
Flood v. Margis
322 F. Supp. 1086 (E.D. Wisconsin, 1971)
Custom Leasing, Inc. v. Gardner
307 F. Supp. 161 (N.D. Mississippi, 1969)
Ernell v. O'FIEL
441 S.W.2d 653 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1969)
Cornelia O'COnnOr Grey, James Charles Grey and Michael Carter Grey v. First National Bank in Dallas
393 F.2d 371 (First Circuit, 1968)
Mike Sherman v. Fredric D. Kirshman, and Richard King, Joseph Rashti and Robert Adler, Etc.
369 F.2d 886 (Second Circuit, 1966)
Alleghany Corporation v. Kirby
218 F. Supp. 164 (S.D. New York, 1963)
Falsetti v. Indiana Oil Purchasing Co.
215 F. Supp. 420 (N.D. Texas, 1963)
Manufacturers Record Publishing Co. v. Lauer
169 F. Supp. 234 (E.D. Louisiana, 1959)
The Drawdy Investment Company and Leonard Realty Corp. v. William J. Leonard
261 F.2d 226 (Fifth Circuit, 1958)
Hanes Supply Co., Inc. v. Valley Evaporating Company
261 F.2d 29 (Fifth Circuit, 1958)
Margaret O'BOyle v. John R. Bevil, Jr.
259 F.2d 506 (Fifth Circuit, 1958)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
259 F.2d 506, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/margaret-oboyle-v-john-r-bevil-jr-ca5-1958.