Flaniken v. Neal

Citations

• 67 Tex. 629
• 4 S.W. 212
• 1887 Tex. LEXIS 935

Syllabus

<p>1. Parol Evidence—Sheriff’s Return.—If the recitals on the return of an execution correspond with those contained in the sheriff’s deed, as to the extent of the interest inland levied on and sold, parol evidence is not admissible in a collateral proceeding to correct or vary such recitals.</p> <p>2. Same—Collateral Attack.—Under such circumstances the party whose rights are prejudiced, must seek relief in a direct proceeding brought to obtain it. This case distinguished from Holmes v. Buckner, infra, 107.</p> <p>3. Purchaser at Sheriff's Sale.—A purchaser at sheriff's sale, whose money paid on the purchase satisfied the judgment under which the sale was made, is entitled to be subrogated to the rights of the plaintiff in exetion, if the sale should be held void.</p> <p>4. Covenant of Warranty.—The covenant of general warranty provided for in Article 552 of the Revised Statutes, binds the grantor to “ warrant and forever defend” the title to the grantee, “his heirs and assigns.” This obligation is continuous and is a covenant running with the land, which accompanies all conveyances of the same, and passes to eaeh successive purchaser.</p> <p>6. Same.—One effect of such a covenant is to pass without the need of another conveyance any title to the same land subsequently acquired from another source by the covenanter himself. The covenant of warranty adds nothing to the deed by way of operating a conveyance of the existing right which is vested at the time in the grantor, and which is conveyed by other clauses in the deed.</p> <p>6. Cases Approved.—B.eddoes, Executor, v. Wadsworth, 21 Wendell, 120; Brady v. Spurck, 27 Illinois, 478; McOrady v. Brisbane, 1 Nott & McCord, 104; Lewis v. Cook, 13 Iredell, 108, and Town v, Needham, 3 Paige, 646, approved.</p>