Eylar v. Eylar

Citations

• 60 Tex. 315
• 1883 Tex. LEXIS 328

Syllabus

<p>1. Notice — Possession.— The sole office which possession performs in the matter of notice is, to put a person desiring to purchase upon inquiry, and it has no effect in determining what the inquiry shall be or of whom it shall be made.</p> <p>3. Notice.— A purchaser from a vendee whose vendor remains in. possession is not bound to inquire further as to the title, when he finds on record in the county a deed from such vendor conveying title, properly proved up and registered. To hold otherwise would be to strike at the very foundation of the policy on which registration laws rest. When inquiry as to title is prosecuted to the highest source which affords evidence of the right, there is no obligation to explore inferior and less reliable channels of information. Mullin’s Guardian v. Wimberly, 50 Tex., 457, discussed and distinguished. Van Keuren v. Central R. R. Co., 9 Vroom, 167; Grotons Savings Bank v. Batty, 30 N. J. Eq., 133; N. Y. Life Ins. Co. v. Cutler, 3 Sandf. Ch., 179; Cook v. Travis, 20 N. Y., 400; Bloomer v. Henderson, 8 Mich., 395; Scott v. Gallaher, 14 S. & R., 333, cited and approved.</p> <p>3. Chabqe op ooübt.— See opinion for charge of court held erroneous as applied to the case.</p> <p>4. Lien — Homestead.—A lien on a homestead, existing prior to the adoption of the present state constitution, cannot be divested under its operation, and one who received an absolute deed from the owner of the homestead as security for advancing money to discharge such a lien would be subrogated to the rights of the original lien holder against the homestead.</p>