Price v. Biscoe
Decision Date | 14 April 1943 |
Docket Number | No. 2460-8043.,2460-8043. |
Citation | 170 S.W.2d 729 |
Parties | PRICE v. BISCOE et al. |
Court | Texas Supreme Court |
This is an action in trespass to try title brought by Rice Price, petitioner, against Ogden Porter Biscoe (and her husband), respondent, for the title and possession of an undivided 1/6 interest in 116 acres of land and to cancel a deed executed on August 29, 1929, by petitioner conveying said undivided interest to respondent. Petitioner alleged that said deed, although absolute on its face, was in fact only a mortgage to secure an indebtedness due by him to her.
Only two issues were submitted to the jury. The first inquired whether petitioner understood and intended the deed to be only a mortgage. The other presented the same inquiry as to respondent. Both were answered in the affirmative. Thereupon the trial court entered judgment awarding petitioner recovery of the land and respondent recovery of $367.66 against petitioner, that being what he owed her, plus interest, on the "mortgage" debt. That judgment was reversed and the cause remanded by the Court of Civil Appeals at Texarkana. 164 S.W.2d 67.
Four points of error assigned here present only the question of jury misconduct, which was the ground for reversal by the Court of Civil Appeals.
The alleged misconduct occurred during the jury's consideration of the second special issue. It is claimed that some of the jurors wanted to answer it "No" and that it was argued by some that such an answer would create a conflict with the first special issue, which had been answered "Yes", thereby resulting in a "hung jury" and a delay in their getting home. It is alleged that because of this argument special issue No. 2 was finally answered "Yes."
After hearing the testimony presented on respondent's motion for a new trial, the trial court overruled the motion. No request was made for findings of fact and conclusions of law, and he made none.
At this hearing only four witnesses testified, all of whom were called by respondent. Three of them were jurors. The fourth was the bailiff who had charge of the jury. Attaway, Lee and Gilbreath were the jurors. Their testimony presents many conflicts and inconsistencies as to what happened, when it happened and as to its effect. For example, Attaway testified, in part:
Then he testified that some one suggested they send for the trial judge to find out if an answer of "Yes" to the first issue and "No" to the second would result in a hung jury; that, upon being informed that the judge was not immediately available, the jury began a discussion of the evidence on the second issue and decided upon an answer of `Yes' in about fifteen minutes.
Juror Lee testified that after answering the first issue "Yes", the jury started discussing the second and took several votes without a decision.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Trousdale v. Texas & N. O. R. Co., 12539
...positive fact that Crawford did not make the misconduct statement at all. Credibility is determined by the trial court. Price v. Biscoe, 141 Tex. 159, 170 S.W.2d 729, 731; Sproles Motor Freight Lines v. Judge, Tex.Civ.App., 123 S.W.2d 919, The misconduct in the case reduces itself to an iss......
-
Lewis v. Yaggi
...trial of the original cause. Monkey Grip Rubber Co. v. Walton,122 Tex. 185, 53 S.W.2d 770, 773 (1932, opinion adopted); Price v. Biscoe,141 Tex. 159, 170 S.W.2d 729, 731 (1943, opinion adopted); State v. Walker,334 S.W.2d 611, 614 (Tex.Civ.App. Texarkana 1960, no writ). Thus the court may a......
-
Buckalew v. Butcher-Arthur, Inc., 4514.
...v. Walton, 122 Tex. 185, 53 S.W.2d 770; Waggoman v. Fort Worth Well Machinery & Supply Co., 124 Tex. 325, 76 S.W.2d 1005; Price v. Briscoe, 141 Tex. 159, 170 S.W.2d 729; Maryland Casualty Co. v. Hearks, 144 Tex. 317, 190 S.W.2d 62; Davis v. Christmas, Tex. Civ.App., 248 S.W. 126; Beaumont, ......
-
City of Houston v. Fondren, 11822.
...Glenn, Tex.Civ.App., 8 S.W.2d 735; Prescott v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., Tex.Civ.App., 129 S.W.2d 821, writ dismissed; Price v. Briscoe, 141 Tex. 159, 170 S.W.2d 729; Russell v. Adams, Tex.Civ.App., 18 S.W.2d 189; Wallis v. Long, Tex.Civ.App., 75 S.W.2d 138, writ refused; Wilson v. Place,......