Connolly v. Hammond
Citations
- 51 Tex. 635
Syllabus
<p>1. Void and voidable—Trust sale.—A sale made by a trustee who becomes indirectly the purchaser of the trust property at such sale, is not absolutely void, butprima-facie voidable.</p> <p>2. Cases approved.—E.rskine v. De la Baum, 3 Tex., 400, and Howard v. Davis, 6 Tex., 174, approved.</p> <p>3. Laches.—When a trustee becomes indirectly the purchaser at a sale made by himself, the cestui que trust who desires to set it aside must assert his rights within a reasonable time. Long acquiescence in the sale, after the facts connected with the purchase were known, or by the exercise of reasonable diligence might have been known, will amount to a confirmation of the trustee’s action.</p> <p>4. Laches—Fraud.—In Texas the rule is well established, that a party seeking equitable relief against fraud or mistake, is chargeable with laches from the time it was or ought to have been discovered.</p> <p>5. Cases approved.—Bremond v. McLean, 45 Tex., 18, and Carlisle v. Hart, 27 Tex., 350, approved.</p> <p>6. Trespass to try title.—As a general rule, in trespass to try title, the plaintiff who acquired a different title from that relied on in bis first suit, before the second is instituted, has the same right to assert it in his second suit which would have accompanied it into the hands of a stranger.</p> <p>6. Trespass to try title—Evidence—Practice.—In trespass to try title, the plaintiff, in opening his case, should produce in evidence whatever title he relies on for a recovery. If he neglect to do this, whether the District Court should permit him, in its discretion, after introducing one title and opening his case, to introduce another and additional title in rebuttal, is not in this case determined,</p> <p>8. Evidence—Trespass to try title.—When in trespass to try title a deed has been introduced by defendant divesting of all title an original grantee under whom both claim, and he offers another deed subsequent in date, purporting to convey all the interest of the heirs of
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- holding that \Court of Appeals was proceeding within its jurisdiction\ in issuing a temporary stay while the merits of a petition for a writ were pending
- holding that a stay preserving the status quo while the merits of a petition for a writ were pending did not rise to the level of immediate and irreparable harm
- holding that a stay preserving the status quo while the merits of a petition for a writ were pending did not rise to the level of immediate and irreparable harm
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Gould
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.