Smith v. Wofford

Court of Appeals of Texas

Smith v. Wofford

40 S.W.2d 883, 1931 Tex. App. LEXIS 1226

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedJune 11, 1931

DocketNo. 4022.

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 40 S.W.2d 883 (Smith v. Wofford) 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

Smith v. Wofford, 40 S.W.2d 883, 1931 Tex. App. LEXIS 1226 (Tex. Ct. App. 1931).

Pincite

Opinion

WILLSON, C. J.

(after stating the case as above).

The effect, as between the parties thereto, of the judgment in cause No. 10225, referred to in the statement above, was to divest Mrs. M. J. Whisenhunt of any title she had in the •land in controversy and to vest same in ap-pellees. That being true, the judgment here appealed from is not erroneous if appellants were bound by the judgment in said cause No. 10225. Appellants insist that judgment was not binding upon them and that the trial court erred when, over their objection, he admitted same as evidence of title in appellees. The ground of the objection was that it appeared the judgment had not been recorded in the office of the county clerk of Fannin county as provided in article 6638, R. S. 1925, and therefore was within the inhibition in said statute that such a judgment not recorded in the county in which land in question was situated should “not be received in evidence in support of any right claimed by virtue thereof.” It is held that the statute invoked was only intended for the protection of creditors and innocent purchasers, ■ and that such 'a judgment is admissible as evidence where, as here, as determined by the jury on sufficient evidence, the objecting party knew or was chargeable with knowledge of the pendency of the suit resulting in the judgment. Russell v. Farquhar, 55 Tex. 355; Baylor v. Tillebach, 20 Tex. Civ. App. 490, 49 S. W. 720; Crow v. Van Ness (Tex. Civ. App.) 232 S. W. 539; Henderson v. Lindley, 75 Tex. 185, 12 S. W. 979; Rodriguez v. Haynes, 76 Tex. 225, 13 S. W. 296; Haines v. West, 101 Tex. 226, 105 S. W. 1118, 130 Am. St. Rep. 839. In their brief appellants say: “The only question involved in the cause after the close of the testimony was a question of law, and not of fact, to-wit, whether or not the failure of the defendants to record their judgment in cause No. 10225'in the records of the County Clerk of Fannin County, Texas,.as required by article 6638 of the Revised Statutes precluded them from offering the same in evidence as their defense and claim to the land in controversy.” Agreeing with appellants in the statement quoted and having determined the judgment in said cause No. 10225 was admissible as evidence in the instant cause, it follows we think the judgment here appealed from should be affirmed.

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

WILLSON, C. J.

(after stating the case as above).

The effect, as between the parties thereto, of the judgment in cause No. 10225, referred to in the statement above, was to divest Mrs. M. J. Whisenhunt of any title she had in the •land in controversy and to vest same in ap-pellees. That being true, the judgment here appealed from is not erroneous if appellants were bound by the judgment in said cause No. 10225. Appellants insist that judgment was not binding upon them and that the trial court erred when, over their objection, he admitted same as evidence of title in appellees. The ground of the objection was that it appeared the judgment had not been recorded in the office of the county clerk of Fannin county as provided in article 6638, R. S. 1925, and therefore was within the inhibition in said statute that such a judgment not recorded in the county in which land in question was situated should “not be received in evidence in support of any right claimed by virtue thereof.” It is held that the statute invoked was only intended for the protection of creditors and innocent purchasers, ■ and that such 'a judgment is admissible as evidence where, as here, as determined by the jury on sufficient evidence, the objecting party knew or was chargeable with knowledge of the pendency of the suit resulting in the judgment. Russell v. Farquhar, 55 Tex. 355; Baylor v. Tillebach, 20 Tex. Civ. App. 490, 49 S. W. 720; Crow v. Van Ness (Tex. Civ. App.) 232 S. W. 539; Henderson v. Lindley, 75 Tex. 185, 12 S. W. 979; Rodriguez v. Haynes, 76 Tex. 225, 13 S. W. 296; Haines v. West, 101 Tex. 226, 105 S. W. 1118, 130 Am. St. Rep. 839. In their brief appellants say: “The only question involved in the cause after the close of the testimony was a question of law, and not of fact, to-wit, whether or not the failure of the defendants to record their judgment in cause No. 10225'in the records of the County Clerk of Fannin County, Texas,.as required by article 6638 of the Revised Statutes precluded them from offering the same in evidence as their defense and claim to the land in controversy.” Agreeing with appellants in the statement quoted and having determined the judgment in said cause No. 10225 was admissible as evidence in the instant cause, it follows we think the judgment here appealed from should be affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

40 S.W.2d 883, 1931 Tex. App. LEXIS 1226, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-wofford-texapp-1931.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack