Hoffman v. Blume

Citations

• 64 Tex. 334

Syllabus

<p>1. Lis pendens — Forcible detainer — Possession—Innocent purchaser.— A vendor after giving an absolute deed, which was recorded, remained on the land as tenant of his vendee; the vendee sold the land to a third party, and the original vendor claimed that, though he gave a deed absolute in form, it was in reality a security for debt, and that the third party was chargeable with constructive notice of his claim, because at the time of his purchase,a suit for possession was pending in a justice’s court in favor of the original vendee,against the original vendor. Held:</p> <p>(1) That Us pendens is constructive notice of that only which is involved in the litigation; that in an action of forcible detainer for the possession of land, by a landlord against a tenant, for failing to pay rent, no question of title could have been adjudicated, and hence such a suit could not charge third parties with notice of an assertion of title by the tenant inconsistent with his absolute recorded deed.</p> <p>(2) That the vendor’s possession as tenant of his vendee was entirely consistent with his deed to the latter, and would not constitute notice of any assertion of right to the land inconsistent with his conveyance. Following Eylar v. Eylar, 60 Tex., 315.</p> <p>(3) That if the third party purchased with notice of the tenant’s asserted rights, he would simply occupy the position of his vendor; if, in addition, the first deed was on its face a mere security for debt, the third party’s only remedy, if chargeable with notice, would be a foreclosure of the lien; but if it was a conditional sale, and the vendor forfeited Ms right to repurchase, the third party was entitled to the property. If the vendor had not lost the right to repurchase, he was entitled to hold the land by tendering the amount agreed upon for repurchase. If the third party was an innocent purchaser for value without notice, he was entitled to the land free from incumbrances.</p>