Cases argued and decided in the Supreme Court of the State of Texas, during the Austin term, 1885, and the early portion of the Tyler term, 1885. Volume 64. Page: 63
xxiii, 825 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:
1885.] BEARD v. BLUM. 63
Opinion of the court.
notes to Booth as the consideration upon which Booth conveyed to
him the property.
By the transfer of the notes it must be held that McDonald consented
that the agreement between himself and Booth should be
carried out for the benefit of Beard, or that Beard should enforce
the payment of the notes.
At all events, under the facts existing, McDonald could not ba
heard to deny the right of Beard under the conveyance from Booth.
If, notwithstanding the agreement of Booth to reconvey to McDonald,
the latter had enforced or accepted payment of the notes,
a court of equity certainly would not have disturbed the title of
Booth at the suit of McDonald based on the former agreement.
That the notes were overdue when transferred by McDonald to
Beard would have subjected the holder of them to any legal or
equitable defense Booth may have had against them, but it is unnecessary
to inquire whether the fact that the notes were past maturity
would have operated as notice to Beard of the true nature of the
transaction between McDonald and Booth, for, under the facts,
notice is of no importance whatever.
The property being the homestead of McDonald, the transaction
between him and Booth was not one of which the creditors of McDonald
could complain, whatsoever may have been the agreement
between them as to Booth's holding and reconveyance; hence notice
of that agreement to Beard could not have given, as against him,
any right which the creditor did not have against McDonald or
against the property while equitably owned by him.
No title to the property passed to Blum by the sale under which
he claims, the property being the homestead of McDonald at the
time the attachment in favor of L. & H. Blum was levied and at
the time sale was made under the decree foreclosing it; nor did
that decree operate as a bar to the assertion of homestead right in
the property by McDonald or any person claiming under or through
him. Willis v. Matthews, 46 Tex., 479. After the sale at which
Blum bought, McDonald could have sold the property and passed,
as against Blum, the equitable title which the appellee claims vested
in McDonald after the deed was made to Booth.
The transaction between McDonald and Beard, and the subsequent
conveyance by Booth to the latter, must be held to have
vested in him all the title, legal and equitable, held by either McDonald
or Booth at the time that conveyance was made.
These views lead to a reversal of the judgment rendered against
the appellant Beard, and it will be reversed; and as the cause was
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 Austin term, 1885, and the early portion of the Tyler term, 1885. Volume 64., book, 1886; Austin, Texas. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth28510/m1/87/: accessed April 25, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu; .