Skip to main content
· 5/11/1886

Wortham v. Boyd

Citations

  • 66 Tex. 401
  • 1 S.W. 109
  • 1886 Tex. LEXIS 641

Syllabus

<p>1. Lis pendens purchaser—How affected—One who purchases land pending a suit in which the title to the land, or a lien upon it, is involved, does so subject to the final judgment in the cause, whether he be made a party to the suit or not. But his title is not affected unless the suit terminates adversely to his vendor. (2 Pom. Eq., sec. 634.)</p> <p>2. Same—If dismissed or abandoned, no subsequent suit founded upon the same cause of action, much less one seeking a different remedy for different reasons against the same land, can interfere with the purchaser’s title, unless he be made a party thereto.</p> <p>3. Same—Amendment—The abandonment of one cause of action and the adoption of a new one, by amendment, is, in effect, the dismissal of the former suit and the commencement of a new one, and all parties interested, not already before the court, must be served in order to be bound by the newly sought decree. All defences accruing down to the date of the amendment may be pleaded in bar of the action.</p> <p>4. Same—It has been held that a plaintiff cannot set up a new equity so as to affect a purchaser who bought previous to the filing of the amendment in which it is asserted, though the prayer for relief be not changed. (Stone v. Connelly, 1 Met. [Ivy.], 654.) Much less will the amendment affect such a purchaser if the equity be different and contradictory of the original bill, and the relief be of a different character.</p> <p>5. Improvements—Good faith—Good faith is more or less a question of fact, and depends upon the circumstances of the particular case in which it is asserted. See opinion.</p> <p>6. Vendor’s lien—Foreclosure—Parties—A creditor alleged in her petition that her debtor had fraudulently conveyed a tract of land to K.; that K. sold to H., retaining a vendor’s lien; and prayed that the vendor’s lien retained by K. be foreclosed for her benefit. Before this remedy was sought, H. conveyed to W., who was a purchaser for value without notice. Held:</p

Judges: Willie

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.