Williams v. Pure Oil Co.

78 S.W.2d 929, 124 Tex. 341, 1935 Tex. LEXIS 226
CourtTexas Supreme Court
DecidedJanuary 23, 1935
DocketNo. 6293
StatusPublished
Cited by62 cases

This text of 78 S.W.2d 929 (Williams v. Pure Oil Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Texas Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Williams v. Pure Oil Co., 78 S.W.2d 929, 124 Tex. 341, 1935 Tex. LEXIS 226 (Tex. 1935).

Opinion

Mr. Judge CRITZ

delivered the opinion of the Commission of Appeals, Section A.

The opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals makes a correct and very comprehensive statement of the facts and issues of this case. In the interest of brevity we refer to and adopt that statement. 49 S. W. (2d) 846. We, however, will here make a sufficient statement to render this opinion complete within itself.

It appears from the record before us that the 132.8 acres of [343]*343land here involved is located in Van Zandt County, Texas, and originally constituted a part of the lands patented to Nacogdoches County, Texas, for public school purposes. On February 9, 1880, the commissioners court of Nacogdoches County, Texas, duly passed and entered on its minutes the following order:

“It is ordered by the court that R. H. Irion be and he is hereby appointed attorney in fact for Nacogdoches County to generally control, bargain, sell and convey and execute and deliver in the name of said County, deed to and receive the purchase money for any and all purchase of any part of the four (4) leagues of land patented to said County for educational purposes, and situated in the Counties of Henderson, Van Zandt, Upshur and Trinity, provided all sales of said land shall be made in accordance with the terms of contract made with said Irion, at February term of this Court, hereby ratifying all acts done by said Irion as attorney in fact as aforesaid, as if done in proper person present by this Court; and it is further ordered by the Court that the County Clerk of said County be and he is hereby ordered to furnish said Irion with a certified copy of this order under his hand and the seal of the County Court in lieu of the Seal of the Commissioners Court, this Court having no regular seal of its own.”

Purporting to act under the above order R. H. Irion, the attorney in fact named herein, conveyed to D. D. Lybrand in the name of the county the 132.8 acres of land here involved for a consideration of $88.53 1/3 paid cash, and two promissory notes for $88.53 1/3 each, executed by Lybrand and payable to Nacogdoches County, and due January 1, 1881 and 1882, respectively. This deed was dated February 11, 1880, was filed for record January 9, 1883, and is recorded in deed records of Van Zandt County, Texas, Vol. 27, page 621. The deed retained the vendor’s lien to secure the payment of the two notes. D. D. Lybrand, the grantee named above, is the common source of title.

It appears further that this land was the community property of D. D. Lybrand and his wife. They both died prior to January 14, 1889, leaving surviving them 10 children, all of whom attained their majority.

On January 14, 1889, all of the Lybrand children were living, except a daughter, Laura Lybrand Ames, wife of A. A. Ames, who was then dead. Laura Ames left as her heirs at law an infant daughter, Mackie Ames, and A. A. Ames, surviving husband of Laura Ames.

On January 14, 1889, seven of the Lybrand children con[344]*344veyed their undivided 1/10 interest each in this land to their brother, W. B. Lybrand. After the delivery of this deed this land belonged 8/10 to W. B. Lybrand, 1/10 to another heir, J. M. Lybrand, and 1/10 to Mackie Ames, surviving child of Laura Ames, but the 1/10 interest of Mackie Ames was burdened with the life-estate of A. A. Ames in a part thereof.

On December 1, 1894, W. B. Lybrand and J. M. Lybrand conveyed this land in its entirety to W. T. Jarman. The consideration recited was $1,200.00. No mention was made of the interest of Mackie Ames, and Jarman intended to purchase the entire tract.

It appears that as soon as Jarman purchased this land he moved thereon with his family and fenced the same, and he and those holding under him have lived thereon and had possession thereof in such a manner as 'to perfect title under the five and ten years statutes of limitation, if such statutes apply in this case as will be more fully explained later.

It further appears that A. A. Ames has conveyed his life-interest in this land to his daughter, Mrs. Mackie Williams, who is the plaintiff in this suit.

We here quote the following findings of the Court of Civil Appeals:

“The undisputed evidence is that these notes were paid and that Nacogdoches County received in money, for educational purposes, the entire consideration for the land. The minutes of the Commissioners’ Court of Nacogdoches County do not show any report of this sale to the court, or any formal order approving it. However, on August 8, 1927 the commissioners’ court executed a special warranty deed for the recited consideration of $1. to ‘D. D. Lybrand and all those persons, firms or corporations, holding title under him, his heirs and assigns, of the right, title and interest now or heretofore owned by said Nacogdoches County in and to all that certain lot, tract or parcel of land lying and being situated in the County of Van Zandt, State of Texas.’ Then following a description of the land in question, and the further recitation:
“ ‘The above described land having heretofore been conveyed by R. H. Irion, attorney in fact for Nacogdoches County, Texas, to D. D. Lybrand by deed dated Jan. 14th, 1880, recorded in Vol. 27, p. 621, of the deed records of Van Zandt County, Texas, under a power of attorney from Nacogdoches County, Texas, as shown in Book E, pages 427 and 428, Minutes of the Commissioners Court of Nacogdoches County, Texas, and in said deed a vendor’s lien was retained to secure the payment of [345]*345two certain promissory notes for the sum of Eighty-eight and 53/100 Dollars each, dated January 14, 1880, due respectively January 1st, 1881, and January 1st, 1882, with interest at the rate of ten per cent per annum until paid, and Whereas the said vendor’s lien notes as aforesaid described in said deed have been fully paid, both principal and interest, same are hereby fully released and declared to be fully discharged and the vendor’s lien retained in said deed is fully released and discharged.
“ ‘This deed is made and executed for the purpose of conveying whatever interest Nacogdoches County might or did have in and to the above described land and premises by reason of the fact it does not appear that the above sale and conveyance was ever ratified and confirmed by the Commissioners Court of Nacogdoches County, Texas, and for the purpose of ratifying and confirming said sale as well as to convey title to said land to said D. D. Lybrand, and all persons, firms or corporations holding or claiming title to any part of said land, by, through or under said D. D. Lybrand, his heirs and assigns.’ ”

The record shows that Mrs. Williams became of full age more than 10 years before this suit was filed, and under ordinary circumstances any claim she may have had to an undivided interest in this land was barred by the five and ten years statute of limitation long prior to the filing of this suit, unless it can be said that matters we shall now proceed to discuss compel a contrary conclusion.

Counsel for Mrs. Williams contend that the deed by Irion purporting to act as agent for Nacogdoches County was illegal and unauthorized and therefore did not operate to divest title out of the county, because the commissioners court had no authority to appoint an agent to discharge the duties imposed by law upon it. It is then contended that Mrs.

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

Related

Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion
Texas Attorney General Reports, 2015
Opinion No.
Texas Attorney General Reports, 2005
Rogers v. Ricane Enterprises, Inc.
930 S.W.2d 157 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1996)
Young v. Fontenot
888 S.W.2d 238 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1994)
Sanchez v. Archdiocese of San Antonio
873 S.W.2d 87 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1994)
Willie L. Thurman v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.
952 F.2d 128 (Fifth Circuit, 1992)
Nash v. Carolina Casualty Insurance Co.
741 S.W.2d 598 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1987)
Luna v. Frito-Lay, Inc.
726 S.W.2d 624 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1987)
W.K. v. M.H.K.
719 S.W.2d 232 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1986)
Hines v. Tenneco Chemicals, Inc.
546 F. Supp. 1229 (S.D. Texas, 1982)
Gregory v. Bilsing
633 S.W.2d 356 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1982)
Highway Contractors, Inc. v. West Texas Equipment Co.
617 S.W.2d 791 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1981)
Walker v. Walker
602 S.W.2d 582 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1980)
Ratcliff v. City of Hurst
593 S.W.2d 863 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1980)
Radford v. Garza
586 S.W.2d 656 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1979)
Yeo v. Yeo
581 S.W.2d 734 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1979)
Cox v. Rosser
579 S.W.2d 73 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1979)
Contemporary Properties, Inc. v. City of Mesquite
577 S.W.2d 570 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1979)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
78 S.W.2d 929, 124 Tex. 341, 1935 Tex. LEXIS 226, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williams-v-pure-oil-co-tex-1935.