Brewer v. Doose
Citation | 146 S.W. 323 |
Parties | BREWER v. DOOSE et al. |
Decision Date | 14 February 1912 |
Court | Court of Appeals of Texas |
Appeal from District Court, Runnels County; John W. Goodwin, Judge.
Action by Joshua Brewer against G. A. Doose, Runnels County, and others. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff appeals. Reversed and remanded as to all defendants except Runnels County, and judgment in its favor affirmed.
C. L. McCartney, of Brownwood, for appellant. Smith & Wade, Stone & Wade, Harris & Harris, C. H. Willingham, and J. I. Guion, all of Ballinger, for appellees.
This suit was brought by appellant, as plaintiff below, against appellees as defendants, to recover two strips of land claimed to be off of the west and south sides of survey No. 40 in block 62, in the name of H. & G. N. R. R. Co. in Runnels county, Tex., alleging that said survey belonged to him, and that appellees had ejected him from the possession thereof. Defendants denied that either of said strips of land constituted any part of said survey No. 40, but alleged that the strip sued for as being on the west side of 40 was on survey No. 440, and the strip sued for as being on the south side of 40 was out of survey No. 39, each of which belonged to them. Defendants further pleaded an estoppel by acquiescence and an agreed line; and Runnels county, one of the defendants, answered that a portion of said strip belonged to it, upon which a public road had been laid out and established, it having purchased the same from appellant and paid him therefor. There was a jury trial resulting in a verdict and judgment in behalf of appellees, from which appellant has prosecuted this appeal. So that the issue presented is one of boundary and involves the location of the east line of survey 440, the north line of 39, and the west and south lines of 40. The field notes of 440 which were in evidence call for bearing trees at its southwest and northwest corners, but no object is called for as identifying either the northeast or southeast corners of said survey. Survey No. 40 calls to begin at the southeast corner of No. 440, and runs thence north with its east line 2,951 varas for its northeast corner; but there are no objects called for as fixing either or any of the corners of said survey No. 40, and its west line is coincident with the east line of No. 440 and its south line with the north line of 39.
As stated by appellant, the issue is as follows: If survey No. 440 be run out the course and distance from its northwest corner as established by its bearing trees for that corner east and south, its east boundary line will be as claimed by appellant; but if said east line be run south from the rock pile in the Ballinger and Wingate road, shown by general reputation to have been the northeast corner of said survey, then the east line of said survey will be as claimed by appellees. Each of these issues found support in the evidence, and upon them the court instructed the jury as follows: Then follows the usual rules as to dignity of calls.
These sections of the charge are made the basis of the sixth and seventh assignments of error, on the ground that they impose a greater burden upon plaintiff than the law requires, in that said portions of the charge required the plaintiff to establish his case to the satisfaction of the jury, before they could find for him. Appellant contends in his argument that these charges, in effect, required the jury to be satisfied from plaintiff's standpoint that the two trees which he claims marked the northwest corner of 440 are the original bearing trees marked by the original surveyor, whereas the jury might have believed that the east boundary of 440 was exactly where plaintiff claimed it to be, yet they might not be satisfied of it; and, under this charge, not being satisfied, they were required to discard their belief, however well founded it might be, and proceed to find this line, subordinating course and distance to everything else. We are inclined to think this criticism is well founded. A plaintiff is never required to establish his case to the satisfaction of the jury before he is entitled to recover, but the jury may find for him if they believe from a preponderance of the evidence that he is entitled to recover.
In the case of Baines v. Ullmann, 71 Tex. 529, 9 S. W. 543, Chief Justice Stayton says:
In Finks v. Cox et al., 30 S. W. 512, Mr. Chief Justice Fisher, discussing a charge where a similar expression is used as the one here under consideration, says: "The word `satisfied' conveys to the ordinary mind a greater degree of certainty in establishing a right than is exacted by the law in order to permit the one asserting that right to recover, and charges of a similar nature have been repeatedly condemned and disapproved by our Supreme Court." He further says: "It is possible in view of the other charges of the court, that the jury were not misled by this charge; but, in view of the conflict in the evidence, we cannot speculate about this matter, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Mueller v. Schien
...Central R. Co., 349 Mo. 1249, 164 S.W. (2d) 336; Endowment Rank of Order of K.P. v. Steele, 107 Tenn. 1, 63 S.W. 1126; Brewer v. Doose, 146 S.W. 323; Texas Indemnity Co. v. Holloway, 30 S.W. (2d) 921; Henderson v. Page, 78 S.W. (2d) 293; Heacock v. Baule, 216 Iowa, 311, 249 N.E. 437; United......
-
Mueller v. Schien
...v. New York Central R. Co., 349 Mo. 1249, 164 S.W.2d 336; Endowment Rank of Order of K.P. v. Steele, 107 Tenn. 1, 63 S.W. 1126; Brewer v. Doose, 146 S.W. 323; Texas Indemnity Co. v. Holloway, 30 S.W.2d Henderson v. Page, 78 S.W.2d 293; Heacock v. Baule, 216 Iowa 311, 249 N.E. 437; United De......
-
Seago v. New York Cent. R. Co.
...... Teche Lines, 163 Miss. 668, 143 So. 415; Baines v. Ullman, 71 Tex. 529, 9 S.W. 543; Detroit & I. Ry. Co. v. Wahl, 160 N.E. 638; Brewer v. Doose, 146. S.W. 323; Finks v. Cox, 30 S.W. 512; Texas. Indemnity Co. v. Holloway, 30 S.W.2d 291; United. Dentists v. Commonwealth, 173 S.E. ......
- First Nat. Bank v. First Nat. Bank