Keen v. Casey
Texas Supreme Court
Appeal from Dallas. Tried below before the Hon. Hat. M. Burford. Suit was brought by appellant, against appellee, John Casey, alleging that said Casey had represented to plaintiff, that he was the only heir of John Casey, deceased, who was entitled to a certificate for six hundred and forty acres of land in Peters’s Colony, and agreed, if plaintiff would procure said certificate, and have the same located and patented, that he would give him one-third of the land thus…
Read the full summary
Appeal from Dallas. Tried below before the Hon. Hat. M. Burford. Suit was brought by appellant, against appellee, John Casey, alleging that said Casey had represented to plaintiff, that he was the only heir of John Casey, deceased, who was entitled to a certificate for six hundred and forty acres of land in Peters’s Colony, and agreed, if plaintiff would procure said certificate, and have the same located and patented, that he would give him one-third of the land thus located and patented. The plaintiff alleged that he did procure said certificate, and had located two thirds thereof, on…
1Opinion of the CourtBell, J.
We are of opinion, that there is no error in the judgment of the court below. The contract between the appellant and John Casey, was clearly a contract which Casey had no authority or ability to make. There were other persons, besides himself, interested in the land certificate, and they had never authorized him to make any contract for the location of it. The intervenors, Berry and wife, purchased the certificate at administrator’s sale, without any notice of the contract between John Casey and Keen. The land located by virtue of the certificate, was not sold by the Probate Court. The…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Stone v. EllisTexas Supreme Court · 1887
- Goode v. JasperTexas Supreme Court · 1888