Sutton v. Sutton

39 Tex. 549
Texas Supreme Court·Decided July 1, 1873·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

Walker, J.

We have in all cases held that one who purchases land for Confederate money cannot be regarded as a bona fide purchaser for a valuable consideration.

If it cannot be ascertained what portion of the note originally sued on was given in payment for the land, the vendor’s lien cannot be enforced. (Wasson v. Davis, 34 Texas, 168; Swain v. Cato, 34 Texas, 398.)

But Charles F.-Sutton claims that John Sutton held the legal title to the whole of the lands in controversy, by ■ consent of the parties, whilst he was in equity entitled to one-half of" the land, having paid his own money for it.

If this be true, his equitable interest in the "land will entitle him to partition;

The judgment of the District Court is reversed and the cause remanded.

. Reversed and remanded.

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

Sutton v. Sutton, 39 Tex. 549 (Tex. 1873).

39 Tex. 549 (Sutton v. Sutton) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Trison Investment Co. v. Woodard
838 S.W.2d 790 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1992)
Goodwin v. Smith
84 S.W.2d 827 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1935)
Porterfield v. Taylor
171 S.W. 793 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1914)
Gerstell v. Shirk
210 F. 223 (Seventh Circuit, 1913)
McCauley v. Holtz
62 Ind. 205 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1878)