Granrud v. Rea
| Decision Date | 20 October 1900 |
| Citation | 59 S.W. 841 |
| Parties | GRANRUD et al. v. REA. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Bosque county court; H. C. Cook, Judge.
Action by Oscar J. Rea against A. Granrud. Anna Granrud and another intervened. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant and interveners appeal. Reversed.
J. L. Scott, for appellant interveners. N. R. Morgan, for appellant A. Granrud. Wm. M. Knight and H. S. Dillord, for appellee.
This suit was brought in the county court by Rea against A. Granrud to recover judgment on a note for $225, and to foreclose a chattel mortgage on certain live stock and crops raised by A. Granrud on a certain farm in the year 1899. Granrud pleaded that the mortgage and note were written with a pen in English, and that he could not read such written English, he being a Norwegian, and that he was induced by Rea to sign the same by false representations. Anna Granrud, aged 18 years, and Tomine Granrud, aged 21 years, daughters of A. Granrud, intervened, claiming a prior lien on the crop mortgaged upon the ground that they had been hired by their father as farm hands to labor on his farm, and to aid him in making said crop, — Anna from April 1, Tomine from May 1 to November 30, 1899, — at $15 per month, payable at the end of November, 1899. They each, on December 26, 1899, prepared her duplicate account for such services, and swore to them as correct, delivering one copy to A. Granrud and filing the other with the clerk of the county court, as required by article 3339b, Sayles' Civ. St., but did not prepare and deliver and file same monthly, as seems to be required by that and the succeeding article. On the trial the court charged the jury, among other things, that "fraud cannot be presumed, but must be proven to the satisfaction of the jury by competent evidence." The charge is erroneous in two particulars: (1) The jury should never be charged that fraud can never be presumed, because it can be presumed by the jury from facts and circumstances proved, and often the only way of establishing it is to presume its existence from other facts and circumstances proved to exist. Sparks v. Dawson, 47 Tex. 144; Heiligmann v. Rose, 81 Tex. 222, 16 S. W. 931, 13 L. R. A. 272; Wylie v. Posey, 71 Tex. 40, 9 S. W. 87; Rohrbough v. Leopold, 68 Tex. 260, 4 S. W. 460; Weaver v. Ashcroft, 50 Tex. 443. (2) It required a higher degree of certainty in the evidence than the law requires. Moore v. Stone (Tex. Civ. App.) 36 S. W. 909, and authorities...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rowe v. Drohen
... ... Runals, 76 Mich. 545, ... 43 N.W. 454; Trimble v. Reid, 97 Ky. 713, 31 S.W ... 861; Bank of North America v. Sturdy, 7 R.I. 109; ... Bronson v. Vaughn, 44 W.Va. 406, 29 S.E. 1022; ... Grier v ... [262 F. 21] ... Dehan, ... 5 Houst. (Del.) 401; Granrud v. Rea, 24 Tex.Civ.App ... 299, 59 S.W. 841. In Beuerlien v. O'Leary, 149 ... N.Y. 33, 38, 43 N.E. 417, 418, the New York Court of Appeals ... declares that fraud 'can seldom be proved by direct ... evidence. ' In Kaine v. Weigley, 22 Pa. 183, the ... court, speaking through Chief ... ...
-
Pecos & N. T. Ry. Co. v. Blasengame
...327; Morris v. Kasling, 79 Tex. 141, 15 S. W. 226, 11 L. R. A. 398; Washington v. Washington (Tex. Civ. App.) 31 S. W. 88; Granrud v. Rea (Tex. Civ. App.) 59 S. W. 841. On another trial the question propounded to appellee and complained of in appellant's fourth assignment of error should be......
-
Smith v. Rickerts, 3503.
...v. Washington et al. (Tex. Civ. App.) 31 S. W. 88; Duveneck v. Kutzer, 17 Tex. Civ. App. 577, 43 S. W. 541; Granrud et al. v. Rea, 24 Tex. Civ. App. 299, 59 S. W. 841; Turner v. Brown (Tex. Civ. App.) 200 S. W. Whether a child has been emancipated by his father is a question of fact for the......
-
Kasch v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
...by permitting the minor to engage in business for himself, or by contracting to pay him compensation for his services. See Granrud v. Rea, 59 S. W. 841; Duveneck v. Kutzer, 43 S. W. 541; and Washington v. Washington, 31 S. W. 88. In the latter case the wife of a deceased minor son sued her ......