Heirs of Ross v. Mitchell

Citations

• 28 Tex. 150

Syllabus

<p>A contract for the location of a land certificate, when the terms of such contract are not shown, does not give, by implication, to the party locating the certificate and procuring the patent, a right to any portion of the land. The only assumpsit implied by law in such a case would be for the payment in money of the reasonable value of the services rendered.</p> <p>Title to an interest in land cannot be sustained by mere inferences from isolated facts, without anything to show how, when, or from whom the claim- ’ ant acquired his interest.</p> <p>See the mortgage in the statement and the opinion in this case, as to the rights of the mortgagee of a land certificate, by virtue of a mortgage empowering him to “locate, enter upon, enjoy, and dispose of said land.” Such a clause must, like all others, be construed with reference to .the character and purpose of the instrument. It cannot change the instrument from being a mere security for a debt to an absolute conveyance, nor does it enlarge the rights or privileges of the mortgagee, otherwise than for the purpose of giving him more ample and certain security for his money.</p> <p>That the rights conferred by a mortgage cease when the debt thereby secured becomes barred by limitation is no longer an open question.</p> <p>It was incumbent on parties claiming rights under the mortgagee, in the case above indicated, to show that the debt to the mortgagee was a valid and subsisting liability against the mortgagor, at the time the mortgagee assumed, by the exercise of his powers under the mortgage, to transfer to another an interest in the subject-matt* of the mortgage.</p>