Grinnan v. Rousseaux
| Decision Date | 10 December 1898 |
| Citation | 48 S.W. 58 |
| Parties | GRINNAN v. ROUSSEAUX et al.<SMALL><SUP>1</SUP></SMALL> |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from district court, Kaufman county; J. E. Dillard, Judge.
Action by J. A. Rousseaux and others against J. S. Grinnan and another to set aside a sale. E. I. Kennedy intervened as owner of one of the tracts of land in controversy. From a judgment for plaintiffs, defendant Grinnan appeals. Affirmed.
Gossett & Young, for appellant. J. S. Woods and Wm. H. Allen, for appellees.
J. A. Rousseaux sold and conveyed to J. M. Ellison the three tracts of land involved in this controversy, for which Ellison paid a small sum in cash, executed two promissory notes for $250 each, and assumed a mortgage debt of $1,600, besides interest, which Rousseaux owed the New England Loan & Trust Company, secured by deed of trust on the land. Ellison made default in the payment of annual interest due the loan company, and in consequence thereof the principal debt was matured long before the time specified in the deed of trust, which resulted in a sale of the land by the trustee to J. S. Grinnan, as provided in that instrument. Ellison also made default in the payment of the notes given Rousseaux. This suit was brought by Rousseaux against Grinnan and the loan company to set aside the sale to Grinnan; E. I. Kennedy intervening, as the owner of one of the tracts of land. The relief sought was obtained as to Grinnan, who appeals from the judgment.
The decision of the case turned upon the controverted issue of fact, whether Grinnan, who acted as agent for Rousseaux in the sale to Ellison, had undertaken, as a part of that employment, to notify Rousseaux, who moved away to California, of any default Ellison might make in the payment of interest to the loan company. Upon this issue the evidence was clearly and admittedly conflicting. The verdict is therefore conclusive against appellant, unless the errors assigned to the proceedings at the trial, or some of them, be sustained. Of these assignments, the first presented in the brief complains of the exclusion of "the various kinds of evidence set out in defendants' bill of exceptions No. 1, showing the reckless and inconsistent swearing of plaintiff," etc. As presented in the brief, we find nothing tangible in this assignment. Various propositions are couched in the assignment itself, as well as in the purported single proposition under it. The ground of the ruling complained of is not disclosed. A glance at the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gaal v. Camp
...thereto cannot be reviewed. Railway Co. v. Jarrell, 38 Tex. Civ. App. 425, 86 S. W. 632 (writ of error refused); Grinnan v. Rousseaux, 20 Tex. Civ. App. 19, 48 S. W. 58, 781 (writ of error refused); Bank v. Smith, 160 S. W. 311; Railway Co. v. Holzer, 127 S. W. 1062 (writ of error refused);......
-
Alling v. Vander Stucken
...to the admission of the evidence are not mentioned therein. Green v. White, 18 Tex. Civ. App. 509, 45 S. W. 389; Grinnan v. Rousseaux, 20 Tex. Civ. App. 19, 48 S. W. 58, 781; Lindsey v. State, 27 Tex. Civ. App. 540, 66 S. W. 332; Johnson v. Crawl, 55 Tex. 571; Stratton v. Riley, 154 S. W. T......
-
Schoonmaker v. Clardy
...12, 155 S. W. 175; Johnson v. Crawl, 55 Tex. 571; Railway Co. v. Jarrell, 38 Tex. Civ. App. 425, 86 S. W. 632; Grinnan v. Rousseaux, 20 Tex. Civ. App. 19, 48 S. W. 58, 781; Hall v. Ray, 179 S. W. 1135, and numerous other cases to the same effect. In the condition of the bills, this court is......
-
Bullock & Blassingame v. St. Louis Southwestern Ry. Co. of Texas
...of the objection or ground upon which it was based. First Nat. Bank v. Smith (Tex. Civ. App.) 160 S. W. 311; Grinnan v. Rousseaux, 20 Tex. Civ. App. 19, 48 S. W. 58, 781; M., K. & T. Ry. Co. v. Jarrell, 38 Tex. Civ. App. 425, 86 S. W. 632; Southwestern Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Pearson (Tex. Civ. ......