Mayes v. Bruton

1 White & W. 384
CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedJanuary 30, 1878
DocketNo. 314, Tex. L. J., vol. 1, p. 206
StatusPublished

This text of 1 White & W. 384 (Mayes v. Bruton) 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
Mayes v. Bruton, 1 White & W. 384 (Tex. Ct. App. 1878).

Opinion

Opinion by

Ector, P. J.

§ 699. Stolen property; right of owner as against a purchaser in good faith. Bruton owned two mules, one two-horse hack, and a set of double harness. One Peacock, his hired laborer, sold this property to Mayes, the defendant, who purchased the same in good faith, paying full value for it, and without notice that it belonged to plaintiff;. Held, that the good faith of defendant cannot invest him with the title to the property if his vendor had no title. The owner of property cannot be deprived of it except by his consent. The universal and fundamental principle of our law is, that no man can be divested of his property without his own consent, and consequently that even the honest purchaser under a defective title cannot hold against the proprietor. [Saltus v. Everett, 20 Wend. 275; 2 Kent’s Comm. 324; Wheelright v. Depeyster, 1 Johns. 480; Dame v. Baldwin, 8 Mass. 521; Dodd & Co. v. Arnold, 28 Tex. 97.]

Affirmed.

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

Related

Dodd & Co. v. Arnold
28 Tex. 97 (Texas Supreme Court, 1866)
Wheelwright v. Depeyster
1 Johns. 471 (New York Supreme Court, 1806)
Saltus & Saltus v. Everett
20 Wend. 267 (New York Supreme Court, 1838)
Hall v. Cushing
8 Mass. 521 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1812)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1 White & W. 384, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mayes-v-bruton-texapp-1878.