Cases argued and decided in the Supreme Court of the State of Texas, during the latter part of the Austin term, 1884, and the Tyler term, 1884. Volume 62. Page: 424
xxii, 836 p., 22 cm.View a full description of this book.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
424 FRANKLAND v. CASSADAY. [Tyler Term,
Opinion of the court.
title under the operation of the principle just stated, as laid down in
Catlin v. Bennatt, 47 Tex., 172.
The opinion, after stating the rule referred to, proceeded to show
that the true construction of the deed of assignment, considered in
connection with the transactions between Jones, the grantor, and
Barnes, the beneficiary, the decree of the court construing and giving
effect to them, showed a state of facts which were, in legal
consequence, the same as would have ensued in the case of a vendor
of land transferring his purchase money notes, so far as concerns
the question as to whether the legal title abided with Jones' estate,
or with the assignees or not.
The opinion says: "But in the case before us there would seem
to be no difficulty in coming to the conclusion, under the peculiar
circumstances of it, that the plaintiff has not the superior title to the
land sued for. We think it was evident from the proofs that it was
not the intention of the parties that the assignees should retain the
legal title until payment of the money." The reasoning of the
court which follows this construction and conclusion, illustrates
clearly enough, that the view which the court took of the legal
question was not made to depend on what was the effect of the
mere taking the notes and mortgages in the name of Lanfear, and
of his right to receive the proceeds, but that the entire transaction
between Jones and Barnes manifested the intention to place the
evidences of debt and the security therefor arising from the sales
of land in a condition and position wholly incompatible with the
reservation of any title to the land in the grantor of the deed of
assignment, or in the assignees, and that from that consideration the
superior title could not exist in Frankland.
Under this interpretation of the opinion we do not deem it necessary
to investigate or determine whether the decision of the court
was or was not maintainable on the series of hypothetical propositions
made in the brief, because we conceive that the opinion itself
does not discuss nor determine nor base the decision of the court
upon the theories which are thus imputed to it.
In addition to the ground of the opinion which we have mentioned,
consideration was given to the fact that Frankland said in his
testimony that he placed the purchase money notes given for the
land in the hands of Barnes' attorney for collection. We do not
deem it necessary to discuss this feature of the opinion, presented,
as it seems to have been, as an additional ground for the deduction
that that act of election indicated a relinquishment of claim of title
to the land on the part of the assignees.
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This book can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Book.
Texas. Supreme Court. Cases argued and decided in the Supreme Court of the State of Texas, during the latter part of the Austin term, 1884, and the Tyler term, 1884. Volume 62., book, 1885; Austin, Texas. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth28512/m1/446/: accessed May 6, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu; .