Watson v. Chalk
Texas Supreme Court
Appeal from Bell. The plaintiff in this suit claimed title, derived from Charles Curtis, the original grantee. Curtis, in 1835; conveyed the land in controversy to Niles F. Smith, who conveyed to Elliot Fletcher in 1836. The conveyances in both sales were regularly executed before J. L. Hood, Judge of the Jurisdiction, and registered in January, 1850. A deed from Fletcher, for the same land, to Watson, the plaintiff", was executed in 1846, and registered in 1848. The…
Read the full summary
Appeal from Bell. The plaintiff in this suit claimed title, derived from Charles Curtis, the original grantee. Curtis, in 1835; conveyed the land in controversy to Niles F. Smith, who conveyed to Elliot Fletcher in 1836. The conveyances in both sales were regularly executed before J. L. Hood, Judge of the Jurisdiction, and registered in January, 1850. A deed from Fletcher, for the same land, to Watson, the plaintiff", was executed in 1846, and registered in 1848. The defendant claimed title by a deed executed to himself by Curtis, the original grantee, dated ¡November 24th, A. D., 1849, and…
1Opinion of the CourtLipscomb, J.
The defendant claims as an innocent purchaser for a valuable consideration, without notice. The appellant contends that the two first deeds, from Curtis to Smith and from Smith to Fletcher, being notarial acts, and before any registration law had been enacted, had the force and effect of records, and required no registration to be made of them; and such would be the correct conclusion, if the contest was between him and Curtis. But where the rights of an innocent purchaser intervene, we believe that the legal effect of the notarial act would be different. The Congress of Texas, in view, no…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Russell v. FarquharTexas Supreme Court · 1881
- Hawley v. BullockTexas Supreme Court · 1867
- Ryle v. DavidsonTexas Supreme Court · 1909
- Thompson v. WestbrookTexas Supreme Court · 1882