City of San Antonio v. Grandjean

• Decision Date: 07 February 1898
• Citation: 44 S.W. 476
• Parties: CITY OF SAN ANTONIO v. GRANDJEAN.
• Court: Texas Supreme Court

Page 476

44 S.W. 476

CITY OF SAN ANTONIO v.GRANDJEAN.

Supreme Court of Texas.

February 7, 1898.

On motion for rehearing. Overruled.

For former report, see 41 S. W. 477.

GAINES, C. J.

The defendant in error, in her motion for a rehearing, complains of inaccuracies in the statement of the case-made in the opinion of this court, which we deem it proper to correct.The statement complained of is as follows: "On the 17th day of December, 1889, Ulysses Grandjean accepted one half of the sum, and gave his receipt therefor.On January 4, 1890, the plaintiff drew her check for the other half, and had it placed to her own credit in the bank, and subsequently, during the same year, drew it out in various sums, and appropriated it to her own use."The statement of the court of civil appeals from which the above was extracted is as follows: "Early in the morning of December 3, 1889, the street commissioner of the city of San Antonio, acting for and in behalf of the city, tore down and removed the buildings, and the premises were appropriated by the city to its use as a part of St. Mary's street, and have been used by the city exclusively for that purpose continually ever since.The city treasurer, upon the instruction of the city attorney, placed the money ($35,000) in the bank to the credit of both parties.This deposit seems to have been made on December 31, 1889, although the following receipt was given for the money, viz.: `San Antonio.Dec. 17th, 1889.Received of Ferdinand Herff, city treasurer of the city of San Antonio, the sum of thirty-five thousand dollars, being the amount deposited to my credit by the said city of San Antonio for the damages allowed me for the condemnation of my property situated on the northeast corner of Commerce street and St. Mary's street, and taken for the purpose of widening said St. Mary's street; said amount being in full of all my claim therefor.[Signed]Ulysses Grandjean.'Appellant was not present when the receipt was given, nor when the deposit was made.The treasurer of the city was not induced to do anything, nor was he in any way misled by what appellant at any time said or did.On January 4, 1890, after the receipt was executed, and the money deposited in the bank, the appellant went to the bank, and complained to Mr. Herff, the city treasurer, stating that her husband would squander the money, and she wanted to get her half of it.Upon being informed by Herff that she could draw it if she wanted it, she...