Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges

SHERMAN v. PINER.

GRISSOM, Justice.

Appellee sued appellant to recover on a general warranty clause in a deed executed by appellant to appellee dated May 18, 1932. In January, 1934, the plaintiff in a certain cause in the district court of Nueces county recovered a judgment for debt and foreclosure against appellant and foreclosure of a lien executed by appellant to said plaintiff against appellee. The judgment of foreclosure included the lot in question and it was sold at sheriff's sale.

On a trial, without a jury, the court entered judgment for appellee for the amount of the purchase price paid for the lot with interest. As stated, both appellant and appellee were parties defendant in the foreclosure suit, and appellee also notified appellant of the pendency of the suit. There was no actual physical eviction. There could be none. The lot was vacant and appellee had never been in physical possession. There was a constructive eviction. The judgment of foreclosure against the warrantor (appellant) was binding as to the matters therein adjudicated and was sufficient evidence of a breach of the warranty in the deed to appellee. Freeman on Judgments (5th Ed.) § 446, p. 976 et seq.; 12 Tex.Jur. § 30, p. 47; Id. § 25, p. 40; 15 C.J. § 100, p. 1267, and § 96, p. 1264.

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

SHERMAN v. PINER
(Feb 21, 1936)