Burress v. Byrd

2 Citing cases

  1. Ogilvie v. Hill

    563 S.W.2d 846 (Tex. Civ. App. 1978)   Cited 6 times
    In Ogilvie, the appellants plead for reformation based on a mutual mistake pertaining to the omission of field notes description of the tract in question.

    49 Tex.Jur.2d, Reformation of Instruments, Sec. 22, pp. 622, 623; compare National Resort Communities, Inc. v. Cain, 526 S.W.2d 510 (Tex. 1975), and see also Gilbert v. Smith, 49 S.W.2d 702 (Tex.Comm.App. 1932, judgmt. adopted), and Burress v. Byrd, 69 S.W.2d 529 (Tex.Civ.App. Texarkana 1934, writ dism'd). And the mutual mistake which will warrant such reformation may be either that the parties mistakenly believed the description in the contract was legally sufficient, Morrow v. Shotwell, supra; Foster v. Bullard, 496 S.W.2d 724 (Tex.Civ.App. Austin 1973, writ ref'd n.r.e.), or that field notes were intended to be, but were not, attached to the contract either at or after its signing.

  2. Texas Osage, Royalty Pool v. Garcia

    176 S.W.2d 798 (Tex. Civ. App. 1943)   Cited 4 times

    We sustain the trial court's holding that appellee's suit was not barred by either laches or the statute of limitations. Ramsey v. McKamey, 137 Tex. 91, 152 S.W.2d 322; Burress v. Byrd, Tex. Civ. App. 69 S.W.2d 529. All of appellants' points have been considered.