## Facts

- W.B. Womack owned an undivided mineral interest in land in Reeves County, Texas.
- On December 17, 1951, W.B. executed and acknowledged a deed intended to convey the mineral interest, but the grantee’s name was left blank.
- Around February 1952, W.B. delivered the deed to his brother, D.R. Womack.
- D.R. testified that, at delivery, W.B. expressly authorized him to insert “his name or any name he desired” as grantee.
- The conveyance was intended as a gift; no consideration was paid.
- W.B. died testate on November 30, 1952; absent the deed, the interest would have passed under his will to his wife, Louise S. Womack.
- Louise later died testate; absent the deed, the interest would have passed under her will to her brother, Harold Stegner.
- D.R. never filled in any grantee name in the deed before suit.

## Issues

1. Whether delivery of a deed with the grantee’s name left blank, coupled with the grantor’s intent to vest title in the recipient and express authority to insert a grantee name, passes title (at least equitable title) to the recipient even if the blank is never filled.
2. Whether the lack of consideration invalidates such a conveyance when the deed is intended as a gift.
3. Whether the trial court erred by granting an instructed verdict against the plaintiff in a trespass to try title action based on this evidence.

## Decision

- The Court of Civil Appeals reversed the instructed verdict and “take nothing” judgment for Stegner and remanded for a new trial.
- The court held that a deed delivered with the grantee blank can pass title upon delivery when accompanied by intent to convey and express authority to insert a grantee name.
- The court held that, even if the blank is not filled, the deed plus the granted authority is sufficient to vest equitable title in the person to whom the deed was delivered.
- The court held that consideration is not required; a deed may be a valid gift.
- Viewing the evidence most favorably to D.R., he established at least a prima facie case; the instructed verdict was improper.

## Legal Principles

- When a deed with the grantee’s name left blank is delivered with intent that title vest in the recipient and with express authority to insert the grantee’s name, title passes with delivery.
- If the blank is never filled, the instrument coupled with authority to complete it may still vest equitable title in the recipient.
- The grantor’s death after delivery does not defeat the interest created by delivery and the authority to complete the deed.
- A deed need not be supported by consideration; a gift deed can be valid if properly executed and delivered with intent to convey.
- An instructed verdict is improper when the plaintiff’s evidence, taken as true with reasonable inferences, establishes a prima facie right to relief.

## Conclusion

The court held that delivery of a deed naming no grantee can still transfer at least equitable title when the grantor intended to convey to the recipient and expressly authorized completion of the grantee blank, and that the absence of consideration does not invalidate a gift conveyance; because the plaintiff’s evidence met this standard, the directed verdict for the defendant was reversed and the case remanded.


Womack v. Stegner, 293 S.W.2d 124 (Tex. Civ. App.—El Paso 1956)