Harrison v. Hogue
Decision Date | 25 March 1911 |
Citation | 136 S.W. 118 |
Parties | HARRISON et al. v. HOGUE et al.<SMALL><SUP>†</SUP></SMALL> |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Dallas County; Kenneth Foree, Judge.
Action by Ella Hogue and others against Edward T. Harrison, as receiver, etc., and others. Decree for complainants, and defendants appeal. Affirmed.
J. L. Goggans and D. A. Eldridge, for appellants. T. F. Lewis, for appellees.
Mrs. Ella Hogue and husband, W. J. Hogue, on July 19, 1909, brought suit in the district court of Dallas county against the Union Live Stock Insurance Company and Edward T. Harrison, receiver of said company, to cancel a deed made by them to such receiver conveying their homestead in the city of Dallas, claiming that, while in form a general warranty deed, yet in fact it was a mortgage, and so understood by the grantors and grantee. Defendants pleaded a general denial. The cause was tried by a jury and resulted in a verdict for the plaintiffs, whereupon the court entered judgment in favor of plaintiffs, from which judgment this appeal is prosecuted.
Error is assigned, in substance, that the evidence is insufficient to support the verdict, and for this reason the court erred in overruling appellants' motion for new trial. The proposition presented is: One who alleges that a general warranty deed is a mortgage must prove it by clear, unequivocal and satisfactory evidence. The fact that the grantor understood the transaction to be a mortgage is not alone sufficient to prove it so. It may be conceded that this proposition announces a correct proposition of law. It was so held in the case of Brewster v. Davis, 56 Tex. 478.
The plaintiffs introduced in evidence the original deed, which was in the usual form of a general warranty deed, signed by the plaintiffs, dated December 15, 1908, conveying to Edward T. Harrison, as receiver of the Union Live Stock Insurance Company, the property in controversy, for the following consideration, viz.: "Ten dollars to us in hand paid by Edward T. Harrison, receiver of the Union Live Stock Insurance Company, and the further consideration of five thousand dollars ($5,000) heretofore received by the said W. J. Hogue from the Union Live Stock Insurance Company." This deed was acknowledged by the grantors before a notary public of Dallas county, Tex., and his certificate of such acknowledgment was in statutory form. The defendant introduced in evidence the following instrument:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Austin v. Austin, 8200.
...271; McKeen v. James, 87 Tex. 193, 25 S.W. 408, 27 S.W. 59; Loving v. Milliken, 59 Tex. 423; Carter v. Carter, 5 Tex. 93; Harrison v. Hogue, Tex.Civ.App., 136 S.W. 118, writ denied; Williamson v. Huffman, 19 Tex.Civ.App. 314, 47 S.W. 276, writ denied; 41 C.J. 328, § 94. Therefore, parol evi......
-
Welsh, Driscoll & Buck v. Buck
... ... Timmins, 4 Alaska 242.) Unless the debt is extinguished, ... it is a mortgage ipso facto, however absolute the ... transaction. (Harrison v. Hogue (Tex.), 136 S.W ... 118; Phillips v. Jackson (Mo.), 144 S.W. 112; ... Ridings v. Bank (Ia.), 125 N.W. 200.) ... Evans, ... ...
-
Citizens' Nat. Bank of Valliant v. Stroud, 2598.
...to the determination of the jury. The decision in Young v. Blain, Tex.Com.App., 245 S.W. 65, is to the same effect. In Harrison v. Hogue, Tex.Civ.App., 136 S.W. 118 (writ ref.) it was held that where the consideration for a deed is a preexisting debt, unless it is shown that the debt is ext......
-
Moore v. Glasscock, 2699.
...Tex. 357, 159 S.W.2d 483, 493; Young v. Blain, Tex.Com.App., 245 S.W. 65; Watson v. Toler, Tex.Civ.App., 153 S.W.2d 506; Harrison v. Hogue, Tex.Civ.App., 136 S.W. 118. We shall briefly notice some of the authorities cited by appellee. Grinnan et al. v. Dean, 62 Tex. 218, was a trespass to t......