Reports of cases argued and decided in the Supreme Court of the State of Texas, during the latter and greater part of the first annual session of the Court, as organized under the Constitution of 1869, which session commenced on the first Monday in December, 1870. Volume 34. Page: 405
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
1 870-71.] RODGERS V. BURCHARD. 453
heirships. See 4 Kent, Corn. 456; Jackson v. Burgott, 10
Johns. 462. An unrecorded deed conveys all the title of the
grantor, and he has no longer any interest in the estate; nor
can any interest descend to his heirs. Davis v. Ousley, 14
Mo. 170; Valentine v. Havnor, 20 Mo. 133; Hill v. Meeker, 24,
Conn. 211; WhIittington v. Wright, 9 Ga. 23.
The deed from the heirs of Gafford to Rodgers was a quitclaim
deed, and could only convey such interest as they had
the time of making the deed, and they had none. See Bragg
v. Paulk, 42 Mo. 517. The court here say, " their deed gave
them the right, title and interest of their grantor, and they
can only be regarded as purchasers, for a valuable consideration,
of such right, title and interest.
A quit-claim, or deed of release of all one's right, title and
interest, purports to convey, and does convey, no more than
the present interest of the grantor; and does not operate to
pass an interest such as may afterwards vest. Morse v. Godfrey,
3 Story, 0. 0. 365; Van Rensalaer v. Kerney, 11 How.
"A deed which simply purports to pass the right, title and
interest of the grantor will not exclude the operation of a prior
unregistered mortgage." 42 Me. 502.
" To enlarge the interest by construction would be to make
a different contract from that which the parties have entered
into;  would be, by judicial interpretation, contrary to
the face of the deed and the facts on which it was founded, to
pass the entire estate, by investing it with the consequences
of a fraudulent sale of the whole." " The case of Oliver v.
Piatt, 3 How. (U. S.) 410, which is cited with approval in
11 Ala. 1067, fully sustains us in the position, that the bank,
holding a mere quit-claim deed, cannot be regarded as a bona
fde purchaser for a valuable consideration, without notice."
Smith's Heirs v. Bank of Mobile, 21 Ala. 124; see Farrer v.
Patton, 20 Mo. 81.
A purchaser at a judicial sale (as an execution, administrator's
sale, etc.) takes only such interest as the debtor or de3edent
actually had. Dwight v. Newell, 3 Colrst. 185; 4 Watts,
:73; Baldwin v. Osterman, 6 Wall. 117-119.
Here’s what’s next.
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. Reports of cases argued and decided in the Supreme Court of the State of Texas, during the latter and greater part of the first annual session of the Court, as organized under the Constitution of 1869, which session commenced on the first Monday in December, 1870. Volume 34., book, 1882; St. Louis, Mo.. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth28539/m1/403/: accessed February 25, 2021), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu; .