Eason v. Eason

• Citation: 61 Tex. 225
• Decision Date: 27 February 1884
• Docket Number: Case No. 1802.
• Parties: JOANNA EASON v. EDMOND EASON.
• Court: Supreme Court of Texas

61 Tex. 225

JOANNA EASON

v.EDMOND EASON.

Case No. 1802.

Supreme Court of Texas.

Feb. 27, 1884.

APPEAL from Colorado. Tried below before the Hon. Everett Lewis.

Trespass to try the title, brought by Edmond Eason, to the premises described in plaintiffs' petition as a portion of original lot No. 1, block No. 97, in the town of Columbus. The defense set up by appellants was that the property had been given to appellant, Ceasar Eason, and his wife; that appellee had at the time put appellants in possession, which they had quietly enjoyed for over nine years; that they had made valuable improvements on the lot, and that appellee, who was the father of appellant Ceasar Eason, had all the while promised to make appellants a deed to the same. The character of improvements made by defendant are stated in the opinion.

The jury, under the instruction of the court, found for the plaintiff.

Plaintiff below pleaded that the property in controversy was a portion of his homestead, and that he was the head of a family, and that the property in dispute had been continuously used by himself and family as such since 1866, and these facts seem to have been admitted on the trial of the cause as stated by the court in the charge to the jury. Other facts appear in the opinion. The jury was instructed to return a verdict for plaintiff.

Mitchell & Pearson, for appellants.

McCormick & Logue, for appellee.

WILLIE, CHIEF JUSTICE.

It has been frequently decided in this court that when a charge directing the jury to find for one of the parties to a suit upon one or all the issues involved in the cause is but the legal effect of uncontroverted evidence, and there is no question in reference to it to be passed upon by the jury, it may properly be given. Teal v. Terrell, 58 Tex., 261;Hedgepeth v. Robertson, 18 Tex., 871;Mitchell v. De Witt, 20 Tex., 294.

Such being the rule, the appellants cannot complain that upon their own version of this case, and accepting as true all the facts relied upon by them to defeat the plaintiff's action, taken in connection with the undisputed facts established by the plaintiff, the court charged the jury to find in favor of the latter, provided the clear conclusion of the law from such facts was that the plaintiff was entitled to recover.

Taking such facts alone into consideration, the case before the court was one where a father had verbally given to his son a portion of the homestead premises of the former, and the son had moved upon it, and had occupied it with his wife as a home for several years. All the improvements upon the premises were placed there by the father, with the exception of a smoke-house of little value, which was removed thither...