Hunton v. Nichols

Citations

• 55 Tex. 217
• 1881 Tex. LEXIS 106

Syllabus

<p>1. Admnistrator’s sale.—In 1845 an, administrator applied for the sale of land of the estate, which was ordered to be sold by the probate judge, by an order entered by him in vacation. The sale was in vacation, by an order entered by the probate judge, decreed to be approved and confirmed, and that the administrator make title ■to the purchaser. Held, that the decree was an utter nullity, which could not serve as a foundation upon which to build up title in the purchaser.</p> <p>2. Practice.— It is the duty of the court to determine the legal effect of proceedings in administration affecting title, and to instruct the jury as to the regularity of a valid administrator’s sale.</p> <p>3. Limitation — Husband and wipe.—The eleventh (11th) section of the act of January 20, 1840, was intended to apply to illegal sales of the wife’s property, made by the husband during coverture, and to such sales only.</p> <p>4. Limitation — Tacking disabilities.—In avoiding the statute of limitations, successive or cumulative disabilities cannot be regarded; minority cannot be tacked to coverture, and the saving of the stat^ ute is only to those to whom the right first accrues.</p> <p>5. Limitations.—The absence of a defendant from the state, or the absence of any vendor through whom he claims, can, in trespass to try title, when he invokes the statute of limitation for his protection, have no effect upon Ms rights, if, during the period of absence, possession was held by his tenant or agent.</p> <p>6. Limitations.—The fact that the deed under which a defendant who invokes the five years’ statute of limitations claims does not convey a good title to the land, does not prevent it from being such a deed as he may avail himself of with the other incidents which the law prescribes as a defense, under the five years’ statute of limitations.</p>