Godwin v. Stanley, 6929
| Decision Date | 09 November 1959 |
| Docket Number | No. 6929,6929 |
| Parties | Charles GODWIN D/B/A Charles Godwin Accordion Studios, Appellant, v. Jerry E. STANLEY et ux., Appellees. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
J. P. Moseley and Burt Barr, Dallas, for appellant.
Witts, Geary, Hamilton & Brice, Dallas, for appellees.
This is an action brought by Jerry E. Stanley and wife, Garnet Stanley, as plaintiffs, against Charles Godwin, as defendant, to recover actual damages and exemplary damages because of an alleged assault committed by Charles Godwin upon Garnet Stanley. The trouble arose over the possession of an accordion. The defendant had sold the accordion to the plaintiffs and had retained a chattel mortgage thereon to secure the payment of the unpaid purchase price. The plaintiffs had become delinquent in their payments and the defendant went to the home of plaintiffs to collect and when the defendant was informed that the plaintiffs could not pay at that time the defendant attempted to take the accordion under the terms of his chattel mortgage authorizing him to take possession of the same when the payments were delinquent. Garnet Stanley refused to permit the defendant to take the instrument, and when the defendant attempted to get possession, regardless of Mrs. Stanley's protests, the conflict between Mr. Godwin and Mrs. Stanley occurred.
The case was tried to a jury upon special issues. There were no exceptions to the court's charge and neither were there any requested special issues. The jury found that on the occasion in question Charles Godwin committed an assault and battery upon Mrs. Stanley and that Mr. Godwin acted with malice. The jury was asked by Special Issue No. 3 whether Mrs. Stanley provoked to any extent or degree the actions, if any, by Mr. Godwin. The jury answered 'yes.' In answer to Special Issues Nos. 4 and 5 the jury found that Mr. Godwin was not acting in self-defense at the time he committed the assault and battery on Mrs. Stanley and that Mrs. Stanley at the time in question was acting in defense of her possession of the accordion in question. The jury found $600 as actual damages and $900 as exemplary damages. Judgment was granted for the sum of $1,500 in favor of plaintiffs, appellees here, and from this judgment appellant appealed to the Court of Civil Appeals for the Fifth Supreme Judicial District of Texas, at Dallas, and the case was transferred to this court by an order of the Supreme Court of Texas.
Appellant presents the appeal upon twelve assignments of error but we are of the opinion, under the appellant's contention, these points may be discussed under three points, namely: Insufficiency of the evidence or against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence, and no evidence; provocation on the part of the appellee, Mrs. Stanley and the right of appellant to use any and all reasonable force necessary to affect possession of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
MBank El Paso, N.A. v. Sanchez
...the peace is based on longstanding policy concerns regarding the exercise of force or violence. See Godwin v. Stanley, 331 S.W.2d 341, 342-43 (Tex.Civ.App.--Amarillo 1959, writ ref'd n.r.e.). The preservation of peace, courts recognize, "is of more importance to society than the right of th......
-
Gulf Oil Corp. v. Smithey
...Antonio 1899, no writ); Texas Auto Co. v. Clark, 12 S.W.2d 655, 658 (Tex.Civ.App., Waco 1928, no writ); Godwin v. Stanley, 331 S.W.2d 341 (Tex.Civ.App., Amarillo 1959, writ ref'd n.r.e.); Watson v. Hernandez, 374 S.W.2d 326 (Tex.Civ.App., Amarillo 1963, writ dism'd). See also 35 Tex.Jur.2d,......
-
Watson v. Hernandez
...the car was because they were afraid of him. A mortgagee cannot use force or violence to recover mortgaged property. Godwin v. Stanley, Tex.Civ.App., 331 S.W.2d 341, and cases there Plaintiff further contends the taking of the car was wrongful because of the invalidity of the alleged mortga......