Howe's Heirs v. Rogers

Citations

• 32 Tex. 218

Syllabus

<p>1—When there has been a part performance of a parol contract for the sale of land, and the vendee has been let into possession and has made actual improvements upon it, with the knowledge and acquiescence of the vendor, the contract is not within the reason of the statute of frauds, and this court, as well as most of the courts of the American States, will uniformly compel a specific execution of the contract.</p> <p>3—In 1846, plaintiff purchased by parol contract a tract of land from defendants’ ancestor, who received the purchase money and delivered possession to the plaintiff, who proceeded to make valuable improvements on the land. No patent having issued to the vendor, the agreement provided, that he should make title to the plaintiff as soon as patent should issue. Soon after making the contract the vendor died, and in 1849 patent for the land issued to his heirs. In 1848 the plaintiff removed out of the State, but left the land in the possession of his tenant, who, without plaintiff’s knowledge, abandoned the possession in 1850, when the vendor’s heirs took possession, claiming under their patent, and retained the land until suit was brought against them by the plaintiff in 1856. Held, that the plaintiff is entitled to specific performance of the parol contract; that the defendants took the legal title as trustees for the plaintiff, and can not debar his equity by means of the statute of limitations, which is not applicable to the case; and that there has not been such laches as should preclude relief to the plaintiff.</p> <p>3—If, in taking the deposition of two witnesses at the same time, the same interrogatories and cross-interrogatories be put to both of them, and one of them simply adopts and swears to the answers made by the other, the answers so made are the answers of both and of each of them; and are admissible in evidence as such.</p>