Appeal from Caldwell. The case was tried before Hon. A. W. Terrell, one of the district judges.

Spencer sued Calicote and William B. Coffee, security, on a title-bond in the penal sum of $1,400, conditioned to make title to a lot in Lockhart to “ Tempa Spencer, for the sum of $700, to him in hand paid by the said Tempa Spencer, the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged: “How, therefore, if the said J. B. Calicote make, or cause to be made, a good'warranty deed for the above described property to the said Tempa Spencer, or her assigns, by the 1st day of April, A. D. 1857, then this bond to be null and void; otherwise, to stand in full force and effect.”

The plaintiff assigned as breach, “that said defendant, Oalicote, did not, by the 1st day of April, 1857, or on that day, or at any time since, convey, or offer to convey, to said plaintiff, the property in said bond mentioned, but has wholly failed so to do; by reason of said failure said plaintiff has been damaged, by said defendants, in the sum of $1,400.”

The defendant, Oalicote, plead the general issue, and also that he sold and delivered to the plaintiff the land on the 10th October, 1856, and put her in peaceable possession thereof, and that she still continues in the uninterrupted possession, enjoying the rents, &c.

Coffee put in a general demurrer and general denial.

By a first amended petition, the plaintiff averred that the bond was a covenant for a good warranty deed, and that it had not been made; wherefore she declared for $700 and interest.

In the second amended petition, she declared that Oalicote had owed her $879 80, upon which she had sued him; that, as a compromise, he paid the indebtedness, and gave her the bond in suit; that title had not been made, and because of the breach, he had damaged her $700 and interest; that Clardy and Blanks had a vendor’s lien on the land, which they had enforced by ’suit and the sale of the land, on the 6th of April, 1858, when William Ellison became the purchaser; and hence the defendants had not, and could not, make her a title.

Coffee amended his answer, and plead that no demand for title had been made; that the plaintiff' had remained undisturbed in her possession; and he tendered a deed for the lot, signed by himself, with the usual covenants of warranty, and dated 25th October, 1859. Ellison conveyed to Coffee, by warranty deed, on the same day. There seemed to be a chain of title, with one link wanting. The plaintiff excepted to this answer of Coffee, because it came too late, and the property had depreciated in value.

The defendants put in bills of exception to the rulings, which excluded the evidence that Coffee and Ellison were able to make good their warranties, and for excluding the evidence of a lost deed from the patentee of the land, which was necessary to complete the title.

…

Citation profile

How this case has been treated — in progress