HOUSTON OIL CO OF TEXAS v. GOODRICH , 245 U.S. 440 (1918)

Mr. William L. Marbury, of Baltimore, Md., and Mr. H. O. Head, of Sherman, Tex., for petitioners.

Mr. William D. Gordon, of Beaumont, Tex., for respondents.

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. Ass'n 242 U.S. 430 , 37 Sup. Ct. 141.

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 [245 U.S. 440, 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. 434, 141 C. C. A. 264.

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 , 17 Sup. Ct. 665.

Dismissed.