Skip to main content
· 3/17/1883

Laughter v. Seela

Citations

  • 59 Tex. 177
  • 1883 Tex. LEXIS 125

Syllabus

<p>1. Presumption — Execution — Deed.— When the record discloses a sale, made under an execution sued out. in 1867, on a judgment rendered in 1863, it will be • presumed, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that the execution legally issued, no failure to issue execution within the year being shown, or whether it was the first or an alias or pluries execution. The agreed statement of facts reciting that a sheriff’s deed for the property sold under such execution was read in evidence, it will be presumed that the levy, sale under execution and sheriff’s deed were all in due form. Even if the execution had not issued within one year from the date of the judgment, it is not clear that under the laws then in force the purchaser under a sale made by virtue of such an execution would not have been protected. Boggess v. Howard, 40 Tex., 158; Cook v. Brown, 45 Tex., 73; Taylor v. Snow, 47 Tex., 463, and Cook v. Sparks, 47 Tex., 28, cited.</p> <p>2. Sale of minor’s estate under judgment for costs in partition.— Under the probate act of 20th March, 1848, the share of each distributee, in the partition of an estate, was liable for costs in proportion to the share he received, which was a charge upon the interest received, and the payment of which might be enforced by execution. By an act concerning guardians and wards, passed by the same legislature on the same day, provision was made for the raising of means to pay debts against the minor’s estate by a sale of his property under the direction of the probate court. Held, that a sheriff’s sale, and deed executed in pursuance thereof, under a judgment in partition awarding execution for costs against a minor distributee, vested title in the purchaser of the minor’s interest.</p> <p>3. Construction of statutes.— When two acts of the legislature are passed on the same day, the courts will not hold either repealed by the other, unless they present a strong case of repugnancy, inconceivable inconsistency or palpable absurdit

Judges: West

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.