Carter v. Munzesheimer
Court of Appeals of Texas
1Opinion of the CourtLevy, J.
(after stating the facts as above).
The precise point made by the appellants is that the officer’s return showed bn its face that “no money” was received by the officer on the bid made’ at the sale, and, there being no evidence to the contrary, “there was therefore,” as a legal consequence, “no valid sale, and the constable had no authority to execute the deed to the land sold.” Stated in other words, the purehaser’ss title did not become perfect until and unless his bid was accepted and the payment made, although there was a valid judgment, execution, and sale; and the burden of proving this…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Howard v. NorthTexas Supreme Court · 1849
- Holmes v. BucknerTexas Supreme Court · 1886
- Moody's Heirs v. MoellerTexas Supreme Court · 1889
- Miller v. AlexanderTexas Supreme Court · 1852
- Sinclair v. StanleyTexas Supreme Court · 1885
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Rotge v. MurphyCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1946
- Buckholts v. AlsupCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1932
- Cameron v. SaathoffCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1962
- Smith v. CookCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1939
- Carter v. MunzesheimerCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1928