Bradshaw v. Mayfield

• Decision Date: 01 January 1859
• Citation: 24 Tex. 481
• Parties: A. BRADSHAW, ADMINISTRATOR, v. ROBERT F. MAYFIELD, ADMINISTRATOR.
• Court: Texas Supreme Court

24 Tex. 481

A. BRADSHAW, ADMINISTRATOR,

v.ROBERT F. MAYFIELD, ADMINISTRATOR.

Supreme Court of Texas.

1859.

The judge must determine for the jury, what are the pleadings in the case; and a charge, which is calculated to put them upon the inquiry, as to whether or not an issue is presented by the pleadings, before they can find upon it, is erroneous.

In a suit for personal property, and the hire thereof, a verdict finding the hire to be “worth $150 per annum,” will not support a judgment, as to the hire, for any amount; it is not a finding for any particular sum.

APPEAL from Ellis. Tried below before the Hon. Nat. M. Burford.

This was a suit brought by Robert F. Mayfield, as administrator of the estate of Sutherland Mayfield, deceased, against Amzi Bradshaw, administrator of the estate of Sarah Mayfield, for the recovery of a slave, named Randle, and also for his hire; alleging, that the estate of the said Robert F. Mayfield owned the slave; that the defendant took possession of him on the 9th day of September, 1854, and had retained it ever since. The petition was filed in December, 1854.

The defense of the statute of limitations, was set up by the defendant, who alleged that the intestate, Sarah Mayfield, had held adverse peaceable possession of the slave sued for, at, and for six years previous to her death, in the year 1853, claiming him as her own.

The plaintiff proved the hire to be worth $150 per annum; judgment was rendered in December, 1857.

A. Bradshaw, the appellant, in propria persona.

J. W. Berry, for the appellee.

BELL, J.

It is assigned as error by the appellant, that the court submitted a question of law to the jury, and also that the verdict is insufficient to support the judgment. The second instruction given by the court to the jury, is as follows: “If the jury believe that the defendant's cestui que trust, or beneficiary, held notorious adverse possession of the boy, Randle, in controversy, for a term of more than two years, they will find for the defendant, provided the statute of limitation is pleaded in defendant's answer.” The judge then proceeded to say, “that in order to authorize a party to take the advantages of the statute of limitations, he must plead it.” It is probable that the judge meant nothing more by all this, than what is distinctly announced in the last proposition, viz., that a party cannot avail himself of the statute of limitations, without pleading it. But we are of opinion, that the manner of the charge was calculated to mislead and embarrass the jury, and to put them upon the inquiry, whether or not, the statute of limitations was pleaded, or was sufficiently pleaded. To submit to the jury the question, whether the statute of limitations was pleaded or not, would be error. Such questions must...