Dauchy v. Devilbiss

Citations

• 37 Tex. 93

Syllabus

<p>1. Articles of agreement between vendor and vendee of land recited that part of the purchase-money was paid in cash, and stipulated that the balance should be paid “ on the thirtieth day after the termination of a suit to “ be instituted in the district, wherein the title to the land is to be in- “ volved, provided the suit shall terminate in favor of” the vendor’s title—and in the latter event the vendor, on receipt of the balance, should make title to the vendee, who in the meantime should have possession and enjoyment of the land. Soon thereafter, a suit for the land was brought against the vendor and the vendee, and terminated in their favor; but, within one year from its termination, a second suit was brought by the same adverse claimants. Held, that the above quoted clause of the agreement must be understood to relate to the final establishment of the vendor’s title by the contemplated litigation ; and as, under our statute, the adverse claimants were entitled to their second suit, the time limited in the agreement for the payment of the balance must be understood as the thirtieth day after the termination of this second suit, and not after the conclusion of the first suit, by which the final establishment of the vendor’s title could not be accomplished.</p> <p>2. Husband and wife covenanted, on payment of certain money, to “ execute “ a proper conveyance for the conveying and assuring the fee simple” of certain land belonging to the wife. Subsequently, the husband having died and his widow married again, she, without the concurrence of her second husband and without privy examination, made a power of attorney, purporting to authorize her attorney to demand the money and make title on its being paid. Held, that the power of attorney being insufficient to enable the attorney to convey the married woman’s title, he could not, by any demand of the money, put the vendee in default.</p>