Coker v. Roberts

Citations

• 71 Tex. 597
• 9 S.W. 665
• 1888 Tex. LEXIS 1191

Syllabus

<p>1. Homestead—Estopped.—Coker and wife regularly executed a deed defective in description, for their homestead, to Knight. It was intended as security for money advanced. Colter sold to Lee, after pointing out the corners, and put him in possession, and Knight, at Coker’s request, made the deed to Lee. Lee remained in possession until his sale to Roberts. Coker and wife had never abandoned the land as homestead, and sued Roberts, who; at his purchase, was ignorant of the homestead character of the property. Held:</p> <p>(1) That Lee took no title as against the home.-tead, because the transfer from Knight at the husband’s requesi did not conclude the wife, nor did the husband’s pointing out the corners of the tract cure the defective description of the land in the deed.</p> <p>(2) Roberts, buying from Lee in possession, under legal title perfect on its face, without notice of the homestead rights of Coker and wife, and paying the purchase money, would be protected against the claim for homestead.</p> <p>2. Description of Land.—“All that certain tract of land lying on Jones creek, and bounded as follows, viz: On the west by Isaac Gamer’s survey, and on north by Jefferson Jones pre-emption survey,” held insufficient as description, even in a deed between parties where all presumptions are indulged, that effect be given to the deed.</p> <p>3. Same.—The rule is that a deed, to be valid, must describe the land by its terms, or give tinta from which the description may be found and made certain.</p> <p>4. Homestead.—The husband can not by subsequent act ratify or validate an imperfect conveyance of the homestead, against the wife asserting homestead rights.</p> <p>5. Improvements in Good Faith.—An imperfect deed may be a sufficient basis for the claim for valuable improvements made by a good faith possessor under such deed.</p>