Downs v. Porter

Citations

• 54 Tex. 59
• 1880 Tex. LEXIS 125

Syllabus

<p>1. Limitation—Colob of Title.—Abend for title to land, made December 5, 1839, and recorded in 1853, which did not recite a consideration, is not void. The fact that it did not recite a consideration is not necessarily inconsistent with “intrinsic fairness and honesty,’’ and it may constitute a link in a chain of title from and under the sovereignty of the soil. Such a bond may constitute such “ color of title ” as would sustain the defense, by one in possession of the land, under the three years’ statute of limitations.</p> <p>2. Common law—Statute of frauds.—In December, 1839, the common law was not in force in Texas, and under the laws then in force it was not necessary to the validity of a contract to convey land, that it should be in writing. Even after the enactment of the statute of frauds it was not necessary that the consideration should be expressed in the deed.</p> <p>3. Contract—Consideration.—Though a consideration must be proved when affirmative relief is sought by suit for specific performance, on a bond to convey land, yet this is not required when such a bond is relied on as color of title, under the defense of the three years’ statute of limitations.</p> <p>4. Adverse possession.—However defective title may be under which one in possession claims land, it is nevertheless such color of title as to make the possession adverse.</p> <p>5. Authentication.—Á bond for title authenticated in March, 1846, by the affidavit of a subscribing witness, which failed to state that the witness signed the same as such, at the request of the maker of the bond, was not affected by the omission.</p>