Grooms v. Rust

• Decision Date: 01 January 1863
• Citation: 27 Tex. 231
• Parties: HORATIO GROOMS v. WILLIAM RUST.
• Court: Texas Supreme Court

27 Tex. 231

HORATIO GROOMS

v.WILLIAM RUST.

Supreme Court of Texas.

1863.

The possession of personal property is prima facie evidence of title, and will support an action for its recovery against a wrongdoer.

In cases of bailment for hire, the question of title is not usually material, as the bailee cannot resist the enforcement of the contract by mere proof that the title to the property was not in the bailor at the time of the hiring.

To resist the enforcement of the contract in favor of the bailor, the bailee must further show that the bailor had no right of possession, or such facts as establish a failure of the consideration of the contract.

The law implies an assumpsit by the party using or enjoying personal property, in favor of the owner, or of the party entitled to its possession.

Where, in a suit for the hire of a slave, the plaintiff relies upon the implied assumpsit in favor of the owner or party entitled to the possession, an answer setting up title in the defendant and others to the slave in question presents a valid defense.

Though a deed absolute upon its face may be shown by parol testimony to be intended as a trust, yet the courts will scan such testimony with a strict and scrutinizing eye. It must be sufficient to establish the trust with clearness and certainty, and be in all other respects admissible for the purposes of proof, within the rules laid down by the courts.

NOTE.--Barnett v. Logue, 29 Tex., 282;Moreland v. Barnhart, 44 Tex., 275;Hughes v. Delaney, 44 Tex., 529;Dean v. Lyons, 47 Tex., 18.

Declarations of a grantor in a deed, made several years after its execution and when he had no interest in the property conveyed, are not admissible in disparagement of the title evidenced by the deed.

The rights of a married woman, who was one of the grantees in an absolute deed, cannot be prejudiced by her admissions that a third person had a life estate in the property, when no one has been injured or misled by such admissions.

APPEAL from Travis. Tried below before the Hon. George W. Smith.

Suit by the appellee against the appellant, brought December 21, 1858.

In his original petition, the plaintiff alleged that he had hired to the defendant, for the years 1855 and 1856, a negro boy named Bob, at the rate of $180 per annum. By an amended petition, filed December 10, 1859, the plaintiff averred a hiring by the defendant, and that the defendant had the use and service of the boy Bob during the years 1855 and 1856, which were of the value of $250 per annum

The defendant excepted, and, among his causes of exception, assigned that the plaintiff did not aver that he was the owner of the boy Bob in the years 1855 or 1856, or was entitled to the hires of the boy for those years, by virtue of authority from the owner. The exceptions were overruled. The defendant also answered, 1st, with a general denial. 2d and 3d, denies the hiring specially. 4th, charges that the plaintiff is not the owner of the boy Bob, and therefore has no right to recover his hires. 5th, charges that the plaintiff had no right, title or interest in or to the boy, for the years 1855 and 1856, and alleges that during and long before those years the negro boy belonged to the wife of the defendant and her sisters. 6th, avers that the defendant never hired the negro from the plaintiff or from any one else, but had possession of him in right of his wife, and was not required or expected to pay hire for him. 7th, alleges that in the years 1855 and 1856, the negro in question, together with others, was the property of the defendant's wife and her sisters, by virtue of a bill of sale, or deed of gift, herewith exhibited. 8th, charges that this suit was instituted maliciously, etc., to defendant's damage, for which he prays judgment, etc.

The plaintiff excepted to so much of the defendant's answer as set up title in himself and others. Exceptions overruled.

The cause came to trial at the December term, 1859. No contract of hiring was established by the plaintiff, who proved, however, that the defendant had the use and service of the negro during the years specified, and that previously the plaintiff had had the control and management of the negro. On cross-examination, the plaintiff's witness, Carter, proved the signature of Albert Rust to a deed of gift executed by him, on the 7th of January, 1851, conveying to Margaret Rust, since become the wife of the defendant, Grooms, and her five sisters, sundry negroes, among whom was the boy Bob. On re-examination by the plaintiff, this witness testified that, in the year 1855, he heard Albert Rust say that William Rust, the plaintiff, was entitled to the use and service, management and control of the boy Bob and other slaves mentioned in the deed of gift, during the lifetime of said William Rust, and that the deed of gift was executed by him, Albert Rust, with that understanding. And the witness further stated that he had heard all the donees in the deed of gift make the same statement, that such was the understanding of all the parties to the deed of gift before and at the time of its execution. To this evidence the defendant objected, but his objections were overruled, and he excepted.

The defendant introduced...