HOUSTON OIL COMPANY OF TEXAS ET AL.
v.
GOODRICH ET AL.
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Houston Oil Company claimed title to Texas land through a deed dated June 10, 1839, while Goodrich claimed title through a competing deed dated June 18, 1839, both derived from a common grantor named Felder. The Supreme Court dismissed the writ of certiorari, finding that the trial court and Circuit Court of Appeals properly determined there was insufficient evidence to support Houston Oil's claims regarding the deed's execution, recording, good faith purchase, forgery, or statute of limitations, and that the case presented no issue warranting Supreme Court review.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice McReynolds delivered the opinion of the court.
After hearing arguments upon the issues involved in this cause it seems clear that the writ of certiorari was improvidently granted and must be dismissed. Furness, Withy & Co. v. Yang-Tsze Ins. Assn., 242 U. S. 430:
The controversy (presented in an action at law) is over title to a tract of land in Texas. Both parties claim under one Felder — petitioners through a deed said to have been executed June 10, 1839, and respondents through one dated June 18, 1839.
As grounds for granting the writ petitioners alleged that the trial court erred in refusing to submit to the jury (1) whether the deed first dated was in fact executed (2) whether it was presented for record before execution of the later one (3) whether vendee, in the junior deed was a bona fide purchaser for value (4) whether the junior deed was forged and (5) whether the action was barred by the three years statute of limitations. The propriety of submitting these matters depended essentially upon an appreciation of the evidence. Having heard it all the trial court concluded there was not enough in support of any one of petitioners’ above stated claims to warrant a finding in their favor and the Circuit Court of Appeals reached the same result. 226 Fed. Rep. 434.
The record discloses no sufficient reason within the rule long observed why we should review the judgment below. Forsyth v. Hammond, 166 U. S. 506.
Dismissed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (29 total)
-
Dick v. N.Y. Life Ins. Co., 359 U.S. 437 (U.S. 1959)…to expect this court to revise their decrees merely on a doubt raised in our minds as to the correctness, of their judgment, on • the credibility of witnesses, or the weight of conflicting testimony.” 3 Wall., at 268. In Houston Oil Co. v. Goodrich, 245 U. S. 440, certiorari-was dismissed as improvidently granted after it became apparent that the only question in the case was the “propriety of submitting” certain questions to the jury and this “depended essentially upon an appreciation bf. the evidence.” , 2…1 / 2
-
Ferguson v. Moore-McCormack Lines, Inc., 352 U.S. 521 (U.S. 1957)…wed by two lower courts, and in so doing it ignores its own strictures to the bar that “We do not grant a certiorari to review evidence and discuss specific facts.” United States v. Johnston, 268 U. S. 220, 227. See also Houston Oil Co. v. Goodrich, 245 U. S. 440; Southern Power Co. v. North Carolina Public Service Co., 263 U. S. 508; General Talking Pictures Corp. v. Western Electric Co., 304 U. S. 175, 178. Constant complaints have been made by successive Chief Justices about the large number of frivolous…
-
Baker v. Tex. & Pac. Ry. Co., 359 U.S. 227 (U.S. 1959)…the Court itself notes, “ ‘[ejaeh'case must be decided on its peculiar, facts ....’” Such cases are unique and of no preceden-, tial value and are, therefore, outside of the criteria justifying a grant of certiorari. See Houston Oil Co. v. Goodrich, 245 U. S. 440.…
Previewing 3 of 29 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Forsyth v. Hammond, 166 U.S. 506 (U.S. 1897)
- Furness v. Yang-Tsze Ins. Ass'n, 242 U.S. 430 (U.S. 1917)