Eidson v. Reeder
| Decision Date | 11 December 1907 |
| Parties | EIDSON v. REEDER et al. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Action by W. J. Eidson against P. D. Reeder and others. From a judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals (102 S. W. 750), reversing a judgment for plaintiff in the district court and entering judgment for defendants, plaintiff brings error. Reversed, and cause remanded.
Brightman & Upton, for plaintiff in error. Hill & Lee, R. B. Truly, Merchant & Patterson, and C. H. Willingham, for defendants in error.
Eidson instituted this suit against the defendants in error to recover a survey of land in the name of Mrs. V. E. Thomas and another survey granted to D. E. Holloway; each containing 160 acres and each located in Coke county. The petition described the lands by metes and bounds. Reeder vouched in as his warrantor R. K. Wiley, and both of them pleaded a general denial, plea of not guilty, and Reeder pleaded the statute of limitation.
Plaintiff introduced in evidence a regular chain of title from the state to himself, and rested. Defendants introduced in evidence a judgment of the district court of Runnels county against W. J. Eidson and other parties not necessary to name. Defendants then offered to prove by W. L. Towner that he was clerk of the district court of Runnels county on January 4, 1897, and, as such clerk, he on that day issued and sent to the sheriff of Coke county an execution on the judgment against Eidson and others; that the execution was afterwards returned to the district clerk's office and indorsed thereon was a return signed by L. B. Murray, sheriff of Coke county, that he had searched diligently in the office of the clerk of the district court of Runnels county for the execution, and could not find it. They offered to prove by the said witness that there was entered upon the execution docket of the district court of Runnels county the following return: Defendants offered to prove substantially the same facts by R. A. Terry at the time of the trial the clerk of the district court of Runnels county, as to the loss of the execution and the return and entry on the execution docket. Defendants also offered in evidence a deed dated the 3d day of February, 1897, signed by L. B. Murray, sheriff of Coke county, which purported to convey to R. K. Wiley, in consideration of $184 cash, the lands described therein, as follows: The deed was in the usual form of a sheriff's deed, and recited that the land was levied on and sold by virtue of the execution issued on the judgment before referred to. Defendants also offered proof identifying the two surveys described in the sheriff's deed as being the land sued for by the plaintiff, and being at the time of the sale in the possession of the defendant, Reeder, and not having been since then claimed by the plaintiff until the filing of this suit. Plaintiff objected to all of the proof relating to the execution and return thereon and loss of the execution as irrelevant and immaterial, and objected to the sheriff's deed for the reason that it was void upon its face; that it did not describe the land as being situated in Coke county. The objections were sustained. Defendants then offered to prove by the deposition of L. B. Murray that he was sheriff of Coke county at the time referred to; that he received the execution mentioned, levied the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gibson v. Oppenheimer
...did not admit the execution nor the deed made thereunder in evidence, there is no basis for rendition in this court. Eidson v. Reeder, 101 Tex. 202, 105 S. W. 1113. The judgment will be affirmed in every particular except as to the five acres out of the ten-acre tract adjudged to Mrs. Eardl......
-
Bell v. Franklin
...effect to the findings of the trial court, and do not undertake to make any new findings of fact, for we cannot do that. Eidson v. Reeder, 101 Tex. 202, 105 S. W. 1113. We are simply applying the well-established After discarding all adverse evidence and inferences, the evidence was not suf......
-
Nast v. San Antonio, U. & G. Ry. Co.
...in the nature of a written instrument, yet, if it is excluded by the trial court, it cannot be made the basis of a judgment. Eidson v. Reeder et al., 101 Tex. 202. 105 S. W. The trial court should have admitted rule 10 in evidence, and under the facts of the case should have limited the rec......
-
Dyess v. Davey Tree Expert Co.
...Houston & T. C. Ry. Co. v. Strycharski, 92 Tex. 1, 37 S. W. 415, 417; Choate v. S. A. Ry. Co., 91 Tex. 406, 44 S. W. 69; Eidson v. Reeder, 101 Tex. 202, 105 S. W. 1113. Judge Brown clearly states the rule in the case of Houston & T. C. Ry. Co. v. Strycharski, as "In the exercise of its appe......