Curry v. York

• Decision Date: 31 December 1848
• Parties: THOMAS CURRY et al., Appellants, v. JOHN YORK et al., Appellees
• Court: Texas Supreme Court

3 Tex. 357

THOMAS CURRY et al., Appellants,

v.JOHN YORK et al., Appellees

Supreme Court of Texas.

December Term, 1848.

Appeal from Burleson County.

No evidence which may be sent up in the record can be noticed, unless certified or agreed to contain the facts of the case.

Every presumption must be indulged in favor of a judgment.

Where there is no statement of facts, we must presume, in support of the judgment, everything to have been proved which was susceptible of legal proof under the pleadings.

The appellees, John York and the heirs of Walter Sutherland, brought suit against the appellants to recover a league of land originally granted to one Thomas S. Haynes.

The plaintiffs alleged that they were the “lawful and just owners” of a certain league of land granted by the Mexican government to one Thomas S. Haynes, as a colonist of Austin's colony, in the year 1824, and conveyed to him, said John York and Walter Sutherland, in the lifetime of him, said Walter,” describing the land by metes and bounds, and alleging that the defendants have wrongfully possessed themselves of the land, etc. At the fall term, 1845, the defendant, William C. Sparks, answered, setting up title in himself derived from the Mexican government, and pleading the statute of limitations. At the same term, the defendants, Thomas Curry and others, also answered, alleging that they settled upon the premises in question in good faith, and that they had made valuable improvements thereon, concluding with the plea of “ not guilty.” At the fall term, 1847, the defendants amended their answers, alleging that the title and survey of the original grantee, Haynes, were illegal and invalid.

There was a trial at the same term, which resulted in a verdict and judgment for the defendant Sparks; but the plaintiffs obtained a verdict and judgment against the other defendants, who moved for a new trial, which motion was overruled, and they appealed.

The jury, in their verdict, appear to have computed the value of the use and occupation, as well as the improvements upon the land. There is a bill of exceptions in the record, from which it appears that “the defendants, by their attorneys, moved the court to instruct the jury, that, from the evidence produced by the plaintiff, to wit: two deeds from Thos. Haynes, one to John York and one to Walter Sutherland, copies of which are marked Exhibit A, are hereunto annexed, as a part of this bill, that the plaintiffs did not appear to have joint, undivided and common interest in the land in controversy, but separate and distinct interest in separate halves of the same league, and therefore the jury should find for the defendant, as in case of nonsuit; which instruction the judge refused.”

Exhibit A, referred to, contains separate deeds to distinct moieties of the league of land; one to York, and the other to Sutherland, as stated in the bill of exceptions.

There is, in the record, no statement of facts.

JEWETT and JOHNSON for appellants.

GILLESPIE for appellees.

Mr. Justice WHEELER, after stating the facts, delivered the opinion of the court.

For the appellants it is contended that the judgment ought to be reversed, for that,

...