Walker v. McDonald

Citations

• 49 Tex. 458

Syllabus

<p>Conditional sale—Parol evidence to explain writing— Trusts.—Sale was made of land under a trust deed executed by husband and wife. The purchaser,- after the sale, executed to the makers of the trust deed an instrument promising to recouvey said land to them on their payment to him of a sum and at a time named,—the instrument providing that on failure to pay by the time named, the obligation should be void. Payment was not made. The purchaser sold his right to plaintiff, who brought suit against lessees of the makers of the trust deed for possession of the land: Held—</p> <p>1. Parol testimony was admissible to show the real intent of the parties to the defeasance.</p> <p>2. It was error in the court below to exclude testimony offered to explain the defeasance.</p> <p>3. Error in the court below to hold that the defeasance needed no explanation, and was evidence of a trust or mortgage.</p> <p>4. See an instrument susceptible of explanation to be either a mortgage dr conditional sale.</p>