McGinty v. Dennehy
13 S.W.2d 68 (1929)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
For the Supreme Court of Texas to exercise jurisdiction based on a conflict of decisions, the conflict must be direct and arise from a substantially similar state of facts and legal questions; an apparent inconsistency in outcomes based on materially different facts is insufficient.
Facts:
- An original property owner secured a loan with a mortgage.
- The original owner sold the property to a First Buyer.
- The First Buyer took the property 'subject to' the mortgage but did not contractually assume personal liability for the underlying debt.
- The First Buyer later sold the property to a Second Buyer.
- In the contract between the First Buyer and Second Buyer, the Second Buyer explicitly agreed to assume and pay the original mortgage debt.
- A dispute arose regarding the Second Buyer's personal liability to the original mortgagee for the debt.
Procedural Posture:
- The case was initiated in a Texas county court.
- The trial court's decision was appealed to a Texas Court of Civil Appeals.
- The Court of Civil Appeals rendered a judgment.
- The party who lost at the Court of Civil Appeals (petitioner) sought a writ of error from the Supreme Court of Texas.
- The petitioner argued that the Supreme Court had jurisdiction because the Court of Civil Appeals' decision was in direct conflict with several prior Texas appellate decisions.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a direct jurisdictional conflict exist between a lower court's decision holding a remote grantee not personally liable for a mortgage debt where their immediate grantor did not assume the debt, and prior decisions that imposed liability where the chain of assumption was unbroken?
Opinions:
Majority - Nickels, J. (Commission of Appeals, adopted by Cureton, C.J.)
No. A jurisdictional conflict does not exist because the legal question in the present case is predicated on a factual scenario—a broken chain of assumption—that is materially different from the scenarios in the cited prior cases. The court's jurisdiction requires a direct conflict on the same question of law under similar facts. Here, the non-assumption of the debt by the immediate grantee (the First Buyer) is a critical distinguishing fact. In the cited precedents, such as Brannin v. Richardson, liability was premised on an unbroken chain of contractual assumptions, which was viewed as a form of additional security for the lender. The absence of such a continuous chain in this case means it does not present the same legal question. Therefore, any inconsistency is merely 'apparent,' not a direct conflict under the standard set in Garitty v. Rainey, and the court lacks jurisdiction.
Analysis:
This opinion clarifies the stringent standard for establishing 'conflict' jurisdiction in the Supreme Court of Texas. It emphasizes that a material difference in the underlying facts, such as a break in the chain of contractual privity, can render two cases legally distinct, even if they address a similar area of law. The decision signals that the court will not resolve apparent inconsistencies but will only step in when lower courts issue genuinely irreconcilable rulings on identical legal issues and facts. This reinforces the substantive principle that a remote grantee's liability for a mortgage may depend entirely on an unbroken chain of debt assumption from the original mortgagor.
