Seeligson v. Singletary

Citations

• 66 Tex. 271
• 17 S.W. 541
• 1886 Tex. LEXIS 501

Syllabus

<p>1 Instrument construed—See opinion for instrument held to be a deed and not a mortgage.</p> <p>2. Lis pendens—Execution sale—Purchaser—Notice—aPart of plaintiff’s chain of title to the land in controversy was : (1) A deed from B., executed in 1875, conveying to P. such lands as might be adjudged to belong to B. in a certain suit then pending in which B. was one of the plaintiffs ; this deed was not recorded until July 21, 1877. (2) A judgment rendered in the suit referred to, adjudging to B. and his co-plaintiffs the land in controversy in this suit, along with other lands. (3) A decree of partition between P. and B.’s co-plaintiffs with commissioners’ report and decree, rendered in 1878, vesting title to the land in controversy in P. Defendant claimed that a judgment was rendered against B. in 1873 ; that execution issued on July 16,1877, and on July 17,1877, was levied on B.’s undivided interest above referred to; and that defendant bought at the execution sale. Held:</p> <p>(1) If the action for partition, which resulted in the decree rendered in 1878, was pending at the time the execution, under which defendant claimed, was levied, and if, at that time, B. and P. were parties to that action, and P. was asserting a right to B.’s interest, then the judgment rendered in that suit was conclusive of plaintiff’s right.</p> <p>(2) The fact that the deed from B. to P. was not recorded until after the levy was made would be of no importance.</p> <p>(3) If such was not the state of the action for partition, defendant was not entitled to protection if he had notice of P.’s right before the execution was levied.</p>