Supreme Court of the United States, 1918

Houston Oil Co. of Tex. v. Goodrich

Supreme Court of the United States · Decided January 7, 1918 · McReynolds

245 U.S. 440; 38 S. Ct. 140; 62 L. Ed. 385; 1918 U.S. LEXIS 2146 (United States Reports)

Counsel

Mr.. William L. Marbury. and Mr. H. O. Head, with whom Mr. Oswald S. Parker and Mr. Thomas M. Kennerly were on the briefs, for petitioners., Mr. William D. Gordon, with whom Mr. Harrison M. Whitaker, Mr. Eugene E. Easterling and Mr. Thomas J. Baten were on the brief, for respondents.

Cases that cite this one

12 later published cases cite this decision.

Dick v. New York Life Insurance (Supreme Court of the United States 1959)
Ferguson v. Moore-McCormack Lines, Inc. (Supreme Court of the United States 1957)
Washington Fidelity National Insurance v. Burton (Supreme Court of the United States 1932)
Kirk v. Virginian Railway Co. (W. Va. 1928)
Baker v. Texas & Pacific Railway Co. (Supreme Court of the United States 1959)
Rice v. Sioux City Memorial Park Cemetery, Inc. (Supreme Court of the United States 1955)
Rice v. Sioux City Memorial Park Cemetery, Inc. (Supreme Court of the United States 1955)
York v. St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Co. (Mo. 1933)
Mellon v. McKinley (Supreme Court of the United States 1927)
Missouri-Kansas-Texas Railroad v. Texas (Supreme Court of the United States 1927)
Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Co. v. Zuber (Supreme Court of the United States 1921)
Harness v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad (W. Va. 1920)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

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 *441 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.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.