TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Holland v. Votaw

W. E. Holland v. J. N. Votaw

Holland v. Votaw, 131 S.W. 406 (Tex. 1910)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Texas Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
November 2, 1910
Docket
No. Application No. 6996
Judges
Williams
Citations
131 S.W. 406103 Tex. 5341910 Tex. LEXIS 243
Cited by 7
Headnotes
1. —Married Woman—Conveyance—Acknowledgment—Validating Act. The Act of April 30, 1907 (Laws 30th Leg., p. 308), relates only to the admissibility in evidence of deeds not properly acknowledged, where recorded for ten years, not to questions ■ affecting their validity as conveyances, such as that of the sufficiency of a conveyance by a married woman without the privy examination and acknowledgment required by law. (P. 535.) 2. —Same—Legislative Power—Validating Conveyances. The refusal of a writ of error herein is not to be taken as a ruling on the power of the Legislature to validate the deed of a married woman which was inoperative only because of a defective certificate of acknowledgment. (P. 535.)
Summary
Application for writ of error to the Court of Civil Appeals for the Eirst District, in an appeal from Jefferson County. The action was brought by Votaw and others to recover land from Holland. The land was separate property of Mrs. Carr, a married woman, who, in 1860, joined by her husband, made a deed under which defendant claimed title. The certificate of privy examination and acknowledgment by her was not in compliance with the statute. Plaintiffs claimed title under conveyance made by the heirs of Mrs. Carr after the deed from her had been on record for more than ten years, title under same being asserted by the grantee during that time, and no claim asserted by Mrs. Carr. The trial was upon an agreed statement, and judgment rendered for plaintiffs was affirmed on appeal by defendant, who thereupon applied for a writ of error.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Williams

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

ON APPLICATION OF WRIT OF ERROR.

Mr. Justice Williams

delivered the opinion of the court.

We agree with the Court of Civil Appeals in the construction of the Act of 1907 (Laws 30th Leg., 308), that it does not undertake to make valid conveyances that before were invalid, even where the invalidity exists only for want of proper certificates of acknowledgment to deeds of married women. That statute, as did the one of which it is an amendment, relates only to the admissibility of deeds as evidence because of their having been recorded, and not to questions affecting their sufficiency as conveyances. Therefore, no question arises as to the power of the Legislature to validate the deeds of married women which are inoperative only because of defective certificates of acknowledgment, and we are not to be understood as passing on that question in refusing the application.

Writ of error refused.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 7 cases

View all citing references →
1913: 11916: 11922: 11925: 11927: 11934: 11969: 119132026peak 1913 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Acklin v. First National Bank254 N.W. 769 (N.D. 1934)
  2. Clements v. Texas Co.273 S.W. 993 (Tex. App. 1925)
  3. Pilkington v. Potwin144 N.W. 39 (Iowa 1913)
  4. Hinojosa v. Edgerton447 S.W.2d 670 (Tex. 1969)
  5. Delay v. Truitt182 S.W. 732 (Tex. App. 1916)
  6. Blomstrom v. Wells239 S.W. 227 (Tex. App. 1922)

Most recent

  1. Hinojosa v. Edgerton447 S.W.2d 670 (Tex. 1969)
  2. Acklin v. First National Bank254 N.W. 769 (N.D. 1934)
  3. Andrus v. Hutchinson17 F.2d 472 (5th Cir. 1927)
  4. Clements v. Texas Co.273 S.W. 993 (Tex. App. 1925)
  5. Blomstrom v. Wells239 S.W. 227 (Tex. App. 1922)
  6. Delay v. Truitt182 S.W. 732 (Tex. App. 1916)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list