Texas Indem. Ins. v. Middlebrook, 114 S.W.2d 226 (Tex. 1938). · Go Syfert
Search
Texas Indem. Ins. v. Middlebrook, 114 S.W.2d 226 (Tex. 1938). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 2× by 1 distinct case, last quoted 2008 · …the sale under the deed of trust was complete when the foreclosure was conducted in accordance with the law and with the provisions of the deeds of trust and the substitute trustee accepted the purchaser's bid. ⚠ not in text
139 citation events (12 in the last 25 years) across 7 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: XTO Energy Inc. v. Nikolai (texapp, 2011-08-30)
Treatment trajectory · 1938 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1938 1982 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 15 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) XTO Energy Inc. v. Nikolai
Tex. App. · 2011 · signal: see · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
a recital of one deed, in another, binds the parties, and those who claim under them by matters subsequent.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Jones v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (In re Jones)
Bankr. N.D. Tex. · 2017 · confidence medium
Simonds v. Stanolind Oil & Gas Co., 134 Tex. 332 , 114 S.W.2d 226, 235 (1938); Clarkson v. Ruiz, 140 S.W.2d 206, 208 (Tex. Civ.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Gomez v. Kamper Investments, LLC (In Re Gomez)
Bankr. S.D. Tex. · 2008 · confidence medium
Id. at 822 (citing Simonds v. Stanolind Oil & Gas Co., 134 Tex. 332 , 114 S.W.2d 226, 235 (1938)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Couch v. Clayton Williams
5th Cir. · 2002 · confidence medium
See, e.g., Threadgill v. Bickerstaff, 29 S.W. 757, 759 (Tex. 1895)(interpreting language that is virtually identical to the language in the Sanger Brothers’ deed to signal a quitclaim deed); Porter v. Wilson, 389 S.W.2d 650, 654-57 (Tex. 1965); Simonds v. Stanolind Oil & Gas Co., 114 S.W.2d 226, 234-35 (Tex. 1938); Straus v. Shamblin, 120 S.W.2d 598, 600-01 (Tex. Civ.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Peterson v. Black
Tex. App. · 1998 · confidence medium
Simonds v. Stanolind Oil & Gas Co., 134 Tex. 332 , 114 S.W.2d 226, 235 (1938); Clarkson v. Ruiz, 140 S.W.2d 206, 208 (Tex.Civ.App.—San Antonio 1940, writ dism’d judgm’t cor.).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Wyatt v. Lowrance
Tex. App. · 1995 · confidence medium
Wise v. Anderson, 163 Tex. 608, 611 , 359 S.W.2d 876, 879 (1962); Simonds v. Stanolind Oil & Gas Co., 134 Tex. 332, 343 , 114 S.W.2d 226, 233 (1938).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Sebesta v. Daniels
Tex. App. · 1991 · confidence medium
Simonds v. Stanolind Oil & Gas Co., 134 Tex. 332 , 114 S.W.2d 226, 230 (Tex.1938).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Hunt Oil Co. v. Moore (2×) also: Cited "see"
Tex. App. · 1983 · confidence medium
Simonds v. Stanolind Oil & Gas Co., 114 S.W.2d 226, 231-232 (Tex.1938); Humble Oil & Refining Co. v. Parish, 146 S.W.2d 1045, 1048 (Tex.Civ.App.—Texarkana 1940, writ dism’d judgmt. cor.).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Moran v. Adler
Tex. · 1978 · confidence medium
Simonds v. Stanolind Oil & Gas Co., 134 Tex. 332 , 114 S.W.2d 226, 234 (1938).
discussed Cited "see" XTO Energy Inc. AND Tommy J. Madewell, Patricia Madewell, Violet Joyce Renfro Kivimaki, Gary W. Yount, Shirley K. Stephens, Gregory Doyle Moseley, Sharlet Yvonne Holamon, and Viola D'Ann Madewell AND NASA Energy Corporation AND Edith McCurrin v. Leonard Nikolai and Sandy Nikolai
Tex. App. · 2011 · signal: see · confidence high
App.—Dallas 1944, writ ref‘d w.o.m.); see Simonds v. Stanolind Oil & Gas Co., 134 Tex. 332, 345 , 114 S.W.2d 226, 234 (1938) (―A recital of one deed, in another, binds the parties, and those who claim under them by matters subsequent.‖).
cited Cited "see" State v. Brazos River Harbor Navigation District
unknown court · 1992 · signal: see · confidence high
See Simonds v. Stanolind Oil & Gas Co., 134 Tex. 332 , 114 S.W.2d 226, 235 (1938).
discussed Cited "see" Swanson v. Grassedonio
Tex. App. · 1982 · signal: see · confidence high
See Simonds v. Stanolind Oil & Gas Co., 134 Tex. 332 , 114 S.W.2d 226, 235 (1938); 2) the actual knowledge of the appellee Grassedonio which would prevent her from becoming a bona fide purchaser; and 3) the negligence, if any, of the title company in examining the title for the purchaser Grassedonio and its liability, if any, to what party.
discussed Cited "see" Kamp v. Hargis Bldg. Co. (2×)
Tex. App. · 1951 · signal: see · confidence high
See Simonds v. Stanolind Oil & Gas Co., 134 Tex. 332, 351 , 114 S.W.2d 226 , 136 S.W.2d 207 .
discussed Cited "see, e.g." United States v. Bishop
W.D. Tex. · 2000 · signal: see also · confidence medium
Peterson v. Black, 980 S.W.2d 818, 822 (Tex.Civ.App.—San Antonio 1998, no writ) (sale was “complete” when the foreclosure was conducted in accordance with the law and the provisions of the deeds of trust and purchaser’s bid was accepted); see also, Simonds v. Stanolind Oil & Gas Co., 134 Tex. 332 , 114 S.W.2d 226, 235 (1938) (failure to record written deed does not divest purchaser of title); Mills v. Pitts, 121 Tex. 196, 199 , 48 S.W.2d 941, 942 (1932) (purchaser at tax foreclosure sale must introduce in evidence the foreclosure decree and order of sale to establish valid divestiture …
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Travelers Ins. v. Dickson (2×)
5th Cir. · 1947 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Middlebrook v. Texas Indemnity Ins, Co., 131 Tex. 163 , 114 S. W.2d 226 .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Texas Indemnity Insurance Company
v.
J. J. Middlebrook.
Application No. 23362..
Texas Supreme Court.
Mar 16, 1938.
114 S.W.2d 226
1938 Tex. LEXIS 282
William Roy Anderson and Walker Walker, of Cleburne, for plaintiff in error.
PER CURIAM:.
Cited by 12 opinions  |  Published
Per Curiam :

This per curiam is written in view of the statement in the opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals (112 S. W. (2d) 311) to the effect that there is “confusion existing * * * in the Supreme Court” in that Vestal v. Texas Employers’ Ins. Assn., (Com. App.) 285 S. W. 1041, and Southern Surety Co. et al. v. Arter, (Com. App.) 44 S. W. (2d) 913, are in conflict. In the case last cited this Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals dismissing the cause, but not for the reason that the award made by the Industrial Accident Board was not such final award as would support a judgment in a suit to mature same. The judgment of dismissal was affirmed on the ground that the “Southern Surety Company of New York, admittedly not a party to the proceeding before the Industrial Accident Board,” was not an interested party, within the meaning of the compensation statute providing for a review of awards made by the board. The question upon which the Vestal case was turned by the Court of Civil Appeals, that is, whether the award itself was an appealable order, was not reached by this Court and was not decided because not necessary. There is therefore no conflict between the opinions of this Court in the two cases above named. Both are correct.

The opinion in the Vestal case controls the disposition of the present case, and the Court of Civil Appeals was not in error in following it, and holding the present award a final one. ■

The opinion in Pollack v. Pollack, (Com. App.) 39 S. W. (2d) 853, has no application in this case, which is governed by the statutes discussed in the opinion. Application for writ of error is dismissed — “W. O. J.”

Opinion delivered March 16, 1938.