San Lorenzo Title & Improvement Co. v. Caples

Full title: SAN LORENZO TITLE IMPROVEMENT COMPANY v. E. A. CAPLES ET AL

Court: Supreme Court of Texas

Date published: Jun 30, 1934

124 Tex. 33 (Tex. 1934)

73 S.W.2d 516

Opinion

No. 6265.

Decided June 30, 1934. Motion for Rehearing Overruled October 24, 1934.

Facts — Companion Case — Judgment.

Where the only difference between case at bar and companion case is that demurrer was overruled and case was tried to the facts, with same judicial conclusion as companion case, judgment will be affirmed for reason stated in that case.

Error to the Court of Civil Appeals for the Eighth District in an appeal from El Paso County.

For statement of case see San Lorenzo Title Improvement Company v. City Mortgage Company, ante, p. 25.

Judgment of trial court in favor of Caples and others was affirmed by the Court of Civil Appeals ( 48 S.W.2d 329) and Improvement Company bring error to the Supreme Court.

Judgment affirmed.

McKenzie, Walthall Gamble, J. U. Sweeney, J. E. Quaid, Knollenberg Cameron, Sydney Smith, and Edward D. Tittmann all of El Paso for plaintiff in error.

Richard F. Burges, Walter S. Howe, Turney, Burges, Culwell Pollard, and Roy D. Jackson, all of El Paso, for defendant in error.

MR. JUSTICE PIERSON delivered the opinion of the court.

This case also is a companion case of San Lorenzo Title Improvement Company v. City Mortgage Company, opinion delivered today (ante, p. 25). Also, it is a companion case to San Lorenzo Title Improvement Company v. Allie D. Clardy et al., opinion delivered today (ante, p. 31).

This case also involves the title to lots of land situated on San Lorenzo Banco No. 302. The difference between this case and the two mentioned above is that in this case the District Court overruled the general demurrer of defendants in error and the case was tried on facts. A verdict was rendered for defendants in error, and judgment was entered accordingly. Honorable P. R. Price, Judge of the Forty-first Judicial District, tried the three cases, and the Court of Civil Appeals likewise affirmed the judgment for defendants in error in this case. ( 48 S.W.2d 329.)

These three cases have had most thorough judicial consideration by the District Court and the Court of Civil Appeals.

After careful and painstaking study of the record and the law in this case, as in the other two, we affirm the judgments of the District Court and the Court of Civil Appeals for the reasons stated in our opinion in the City Mortgage Company Case, supra, and the able opinions of the Court of Civil Appeals in the three cases.