Cole v. D. J. Cole's Adm'r.
| Citation | 17 Tex. 4 |
| Parties | JAMES COLE v. D. J. COLE'S ADM'R. |
| Decision Date | 01 January 1856 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Texas |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Where the pleadings are general and the court below charges the jury correctly in the aspect in which the case is there presented by the course of the trial, and further instructions are not asked, if there is not some cause to believe that the justice of the case has not been attained, the judgment will not be reversed on the ground that there was an aspect of the case upon the same evidence not presented to the jury in the charge of the court, in which the appellant might have obtained a verdict in his favor.
Appeal from Harrison. Tried before the Hon. W. W. Morris.
D. S. Jennings & N. H. Wilson, for appellant.
M. J. Hall, for appellee.
This was a suit for the recovery of a female slave. The titles were not set out in the pleadings. The plaintiff (appellee in this court) at the trial introduced a bill of sale from the defendant and one Douglass to his intestate, dated in August, 1842. There was proof for and against the genuineness of the signatures to this document. The plaintiff also set up adverse possession, proving acts of ownership, one of which was in presence of the defendant. The defendant (who is appellant here) proved the admissions of the deceased, that he did not own the negro, but that she belonged to the defendant, who had let him have her to cook and wash for him to save expenses; also by one of the witnesses that the girl belonged to him for life, but after his death she belonged to the defendant or his heirs. He also read a bill of sale from Douglass to himself, conveying the said girl with other slaves. This instrument was dated in March, 1842, some months prior to the bill of sale from the defendant and Douglass to the deceased intestate. The court charged the jury in effect, that if, from the evidence, they believed that the defendant executed the bill of sale, purporting to be signed by Douglass and defendant, to David J. Cole, they should find for the plaintiff. But if they found that defendant did not execute said bill of sale, and that the property originally belonged to the defendant, then they should ascertain from the testimony whether David J. Cole held adverse possession of the slave for two years next before his death. If so, the plaintiff was entitled to recover; if not, their verdict should be for the defendant.
The judgment was for plaintiff. The defendant appealed, assigned error, and in his brief insists that the following portion of the charge was erroneous, viz.: “If the jury believe, from the evidence, that the defendant executed the bill of sale, purporting to be signed by Douglass and the defendant, to David Cole...
To continue reading
Request your trial