Porterfield v. Taylor

Citations

• 60 Tex. 264
• 1883 Tex. LEXIS 316

Syllabus

<p>1. Vendor and vendee.— The right of a vendor to subject the land to the payment of purchase money in the hands of a subsequent vendee’is not affected by the fact that a lien is not reserved in the deed, if it recites the fact that notes had been given for the purchase money. Peters v. Clements, 53 Tex., 140, approved.</p> <p>3. Pleading—New cause of action.—A change in the relief sought, or the addition of a prayer for farther or alternative relief, does not amount to the setting up of a new. cause of action.</p> <p>3. Limitation.—The holder of purchase money notes, to secure which a lien was reserved in the deed, brought suit thereon in 1873, the notes having-been executed before 1861 and maturing during the suspension of the statute of limitations in 1863. No limitation began to run against the holder until March 30, 1870, and it required the lapse of four years from that time to bar an action by the holder to foreclose his lien on the iand. The holder of the notes could sue both the maker and the vendee of the maker in one suit, or bring a separate suit against the subsequent vendee, within the same period of time, to subject the land to the iiayment of nodes given by his vendor.</p> <p>4. Evidence.— The date of the issuance of an execution may be shown by the records of the clerk’s office from which it issued, and any mistake in such date may be shown by the clerk.</p> <p>5. Same.— The contents of an execution may be shown by any one who can testify either from recollection or from an examined copy.</p>