Thomas v. Groesbeck

Citations

• 40 Tex. 530

Syllabus

<p>1. The failure to record, and subsequent destruction by the father of a deed made and delivered by him to his infant daughter, do not divest her of title in the land conveyed by such deed ; nor does a subsequent deed by her father to a vendee, with notice, pass any title against the minor.</p> <p>2. Although such deed may not have been made as part of a partition between the father and heirs of his deceased wife of the community property, still the deed from the father conveyed the half-interest, which interest, and the distributive share of the minor in her mother’s half, should have been recovered in the suit against the subsequent vendee.</p> <p>3. Nor will the minor be concluded by the fact that her father invested part of the money received from the sale in her name and for her benefit.</p> <p>4. In the absence of evidence showing that the subsequent vendees were imposed on, deceived, or misled by the acts of the minor, or were induced by her to purchase the land or pay therefor, there can be no ground of estoppel against the minor claiming against such subsequent vendees.</p> <p>5. A suit brought by such minor upon her marriage, and subsequent to her action for the land, for the recovery of the part of the money obtained by her father from the sale sought to be set aside, and loaned out in her name, is not an act to which the law will attach as an effect the ratification of or an estoppel against denying the validity of the subsequent conveyance by her father.</p> <p>6. Facts held not to constitute an equitable estoppel.</p>