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: 63
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
1884.] ANDERSON V. STOCKDALE. 63
Opinion of tle court.
Anderson therein admitted that she had not paid value for the land,
and that the judgment in part was for the purchase money thereof.
Upon these facts Johnson could have subjected the land to his judgment;
and undoubtedly she was prompted to the execution of the
instrument in order to avoid this, and secure time to have the conflicting
titles to the same settled.
No payments are shown to have been made upon the judgment;
therefore, it would amount to about $40,000 at the time of the conveyance
from Stockdale to Johnson in 1868. As has been seen,
Stockdale, as such executor, was authorized to make the conveyance;
for, while that judgment was not against Mrs. Anderson, still
it as effectually bound the land as if it had been against her in
So far, then, as this branch of the case is concerned, the court
below correctly sustained the demurrer to the petition.
After the conveyance to Johnson, the interest the estate retained
in the Calhoun county lands was three-eighths of one league, which
from the allegations in the petition seems to have been conveyed by
Stockdale as executor to the trustees of the Indianola City and Land
For what purpose this conveyance was made is not shown by the
allegations in the petition; but from the recitals in the instrument
creating the joint stock company, it appears that shares of stock
were to be issued to Stockdale as executor in consideration of the
land. As has been seen, such a conveyance by him would not be
authorized by the will.
But it is here claimed that there was a non-joinder of parties defendant,
in that the stockholders of the company were not made
parties. The instrument creating the company vested the legal title
to the land in the trustees, and conferred upon them complete power
over the same, including that to convey the land or any part thereof.
In Kerrison v. Stewart, 3 Otto, 160, Chief Justice Waite delivering
the opinion of the court, said: " It cannot be doubted that, under
some circumstances, a trustee may represent his beneficiaries in all
things relating to their common interest in the trust property. I-e
may be invested with such powers and subject to such obligations
that those for whom he holds will be bound by what is done against
him, as well as what is done by him. The difficulty lies in ascertaining
whether he occupies such a position, not in determining its
effect if he does. If he has been made such a representative, it is
well settled that his beneficiaries are not necessary parties to a suit
by him against a stranger to enforce the trust; or to one by a
Here’s what’s next.
This book can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
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. (texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth28512/m1/85/: accessed June 28, 2017), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, texashistory.unt.edu; .