Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Trump Issues Full Pardons To Oregon Ranchers(Hammonds) Forced Back Into Prison Under Anti-Terror Law
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Shadowrider" data-source="post: 3133589" data-attributes="member: 3099"><p>There were more mechanics to the language, but the bottom line was the seller intended to sell an interest, the buyer intended on getting the interest he paid for and it was BOTH of their understanding that he in fact did. A few years later a party several deeds down the line in the title chain successfully "horned in" on it and got it reversed with the blessing of the Texas supreme court in a 5-4 decision. One of the majority judges even stated in the opinion that the original parties intent was "this", but he had to go with "that" because...reasons I guess. So the judges couldn't even agree on it. PM sent. [/threadjack]</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Shadowrider, post: 3133589, member: 3099"] There were more mechanics to the language, but the bottom line was the seller intended to sell an interest, the buyer intended on getting the interest he paid for and it was BOTH of their understanding that he in fact did. A few years later a party several deeds down the line in the title chain successfully "horned in" on it and got it reversed with the blessing of the Texas supreme court in a 5-4 decision. One of the majority judges even stated in the opinion that the original parties intent was "this", but he had to go with "that" because...reasons I guess. So the judges couldn't even agree on it. PM sent. [/threadjack] [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Trump Issues Full Pardons To Oregon Ranchers(Hammonds) Forced Back Into Prison Under Anti-Terror Law
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom