Eidson v. Reeder
| Court | Supreme Court of Texas |
| Writing for the Court | Brown |
| Citation | 105 S.W. 1113 |
| Parties | EIDSON v. REEDER et al. |
| Decision Date | 11 December 1907 |
v.
REEDER et al.
Error from Court of Civil Appeals of Third Judicial District.
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.
BROWN, J.
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: "Sheriff's Return. Came to hand on the 4th day of January, 1897, at 10 o'clock a. m. and executed on the 5th day of January, 1897, by levying on 160 acres of land, situated in Coke county, Texas, known as the D. E. Holloway grant, abstract No. 194; also 160 acres, original grantee Mrs. V. E. Thomas, abstract No. 689, situated in the county and state aforesaid, and on the 5th day of January, 1897, by advertising." 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...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gibson v. Oppenheimer
...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. Eardley, and as to ......
-
Bell v. Franklin, (No. 6522.)
...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 Page 186 After discarding all adverse evidence and inferences, the evidence was not sufficient to sup......
-
Nast v. San Antonio, U. & G. Ry. Co., (No. 3815.)
...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. 1113. The trial court should have admitted rule 10 in evidence, and under the facts of the case should have limited the recovery to We recommend......
-
Dyess v. Davey Tree Expert Co., No. 1490-5762.
...v. Page 913 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 appellate ......
-
Gibson v. Oppenheimer
...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. Eardley, and as to ......
-
Bell v. Franklin, (No. 6522.)
...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 Page 186 After discarding all adverse evidence and inferences, the evidence was not sufficient to sup......
-
Nast v. San Antonio, U. & G. Ry. Co., (No. 3815.)
...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. 1113. The trial court should have admitted rule 10 in evidence, and under the facts of the case should have limited the recovery to We recommend......
-
Dyess v. Davey Tree Expert Co., No. 1490-5762.
...v. Page 913 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 appellate ......