Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

78 Tex. 276

Hearne v. Lewis

Texas Supreme Court

Decided October 21, 1890

Texas Supreme Court · decided 1890-10-21

<p>Bents, to Whom Payable.—Upon a sale of land rents not due upon it are payable to the purchaser; they go with the land.</p>

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““The question of controlling importance, and the only one we deem it necessary to consider, is: Did the rent not due pass to Adeline M. Lewis with the purchase of the fee? In the case of Porter v. Sweeney, 61 Tex. 216 , it is said: ‘The general rule is that even an apportionment of rent is never made, under the common law in reference to length of time of occupation, but whoever owns the reversion at the time the rent falls due is entitled to the entire sum then due.’ No reservation of ;the rent having been made at the time Adeline M. Lewis acquired title to the land, the general rule applies, and she, being owner of the fee at the time the rent became due, was the owner of the rent. We are of the opinion that the judgment of the court below should be affirmed.””

quoted by 1 later decision, including Hensley v. Hill

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1890-10-21

How this case has been cited

Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently January 1951 · most notably Caruthers v. Leonard (1923), Dearborn Stove Co. v. Caples (1951)

25 state decisions

1301890190019101920193019401950decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

ACKEB, Presiding Judge.

¶1In December, 1886, H. B. Hearne, as administrator of the Carr estate, leased a farm belonging to said estate to H. L. Lewis for the year 1887, and took his note for the rent, with Adeline M. Lewis as surety, payable on the 1st day of November, 1887.

¶2On the 12th day of May, 1887, Adeline M. Lewis purchased the farm, and the title thereto was vested in her by decree of the Probate Court, nothing being said at the time about the rent for the year 1887.

¶3This suit was brought by the administrator to enforce payment of the note given for the rent. II. L. Lewis answered, admitting his liability on the note, and that Adeline M. Lewis claimed that she was entitled to the rent money due on the note, and asked that the court determine who he should pay the money to.

¶4Adeline M. Lewis answered, setting up her claim to the rent by virtue of her purchase of the land before the rent became due.

¶5The trial without a jury resulted in judgment for defendants as against the plaintiff, and in favor of Adeline M. Lewis against H. L. Lewis for the amount of the note sued on. The plaintiff appealed.

¶6The question of controlling importance, and the only one we deem it necessary to consider, is, Did the rent not due pass to Adeline M. Lewis with her purchase of the fee?

¶7In the case of Porter v. Sweeney, 61 Texas, 216, it is said: “ The general rule is that even an apportionment of rent is never made under the *278common law in reference to length of time of occupation, but whoever owns the reversion at the time the rent falls due is entitled to the entire sum then due.”

¶8No reservation of the rent having been made at the time Adeline M. Lewis acquired title to the land, the general rule applies, and she being owner of the fee at the time the rent became due was the owner also of the rent.

¶9We are of opinion that the judgment of the court below should be affirmed.

¶10Affirmed.

¶11Adopted October 21, 1890.

¶12Justice Henry not sitting.

/78/tex/276 · .json · Public domain