Graves v. State
| Decision Date | 11 June 1892 |
| Parties | GRAVES v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Tarleton & Morrow, for appellant. R. H. Harrison, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Appellant was indicted for the offense of swindling, was convicted, and his punishment assessed at two years' confinement in the penitentiary, on which judgment sentence was rendered, and he appeals. The indictment charges the defendant with having obtained from W. C. Reeves money, mules, a wagon, and other personal property, aggregating $295, in exchange for a tract of land which he then and there represented to said Reeves to be free from incumbrance, but in truth and in fact there was an incumbrance on said land which had been given by defendant to one G. S. Dickerson, defendant's vendor; that the said incumbrance was a written instrument in words and figures as follows:
"$120.00. Hillsboro, Texas, Mch. 11th
1890. On the 5th day of January after date
I promise to pay to G. S. Dickerson or order
one hundred and twenty dollars, with
interest at rate of twelve per centum per
annum from maturity of same, being in
part payment for a certain tract of land
this day deeded to me by G. S. Dickerson
and M. J. Dickerson out of the J. L. Austin
survey, and for a more particular description
of said land reference is made to
said deed, to secure the payment of which
amount the vendor's lien is retained upon
the hereinbefore described property. If
this note is not paid at maturity, and is
collected by suit or attorney, I further
promise to pay ten per cent. additional
for attorneys' fees
his
"WILLIAM X GRAVES
mark
"Witness: T. P. TURK. L. EASTERWOOD."
Exceptions to the sufficiency of the indictment were made and overruled. The only question is, is the indictment sufficient? Whether the note set out in the indictment is a lien on the land in the hands of the purchaser, Reeves, necessarily depends on the recitals in the deed from G. S. Dickerson to the defendant. Of itself, though retaining a vendor's lien, the note cannot constitute a lien, unless the prosecutor had notice of the note and its recitals before he purchased; but this cannot be, because the indictment alleges that the prosecutor purchased the land without notice, and without notice of the existence of the vendor's lien note, and paid defendant for the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wimer v. State
...as the holder of the $15,000 note described in the indictment. If it be sound to say, as was said by this court in the Graves Case, supra [31 Tex. Cr. R. 65, 19 S. W. 895], that to render the representation that the real estate conveyed was unincumbered a basis for a charge of swindling, it......
-
Allen v. State
...of facts, some of the decisions of this court are illustrative of the rule stated by Mr. Bishop, supra. The case of Graves v. State, 31 Tex. Cr. R. 65, 19 S. W. 895, was one in which the false pretense consisted in the representation that the tract of land was unincumbered. The indictment c......