King v. Pond

• Decision Date: 31 March 1926
• Docket Number: (No. 2644.)
• Parties: KING et al. v. POND et al.
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

Page 607

283 S.W. 607

KING et al. v. POND et al.

(No. 2644.)

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Amarillo.

March 31, 1926.

Rehearing Denied May 5, 1926.

Appeal from District Court, Wichita County; Guy Rogers, Judge.

Suit to cancel a deed, by Mrs. Elizabeth King and another against G. W. Pond and others, constituting the Pond Laundry. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.

Taylor, Muse & Taylor, of Wichita Falls, for appellants.

Weeks, Morrow, Francis & Hankerson, and Mathis & Caldwell, all of Wichita Falls, for appellees.

RANDOLPH, J.

This suit was brought by appellants, who will hereinafter be styled plaintiffs, against G. W. Pond, Paul J. Pond, Ralph K. Pond, and J. W. Pond, constituting the Pond Laundry, to cancel and annul a certain deed of conveyance to their home in Wichita Falls, Tex. The case was tried before the court, a jury being waived, and judgment was rendered for the defendants, from which judgment appeal is had to this court.

J. H. King was working for the laundry, running a wagon and delivering the laundry. It appears that he did most of the weighing of the laundry, and it is charged that by means of false weights he had for years been embezzling the laundry's money, amounting to $5,000 or $6,000. He was called before the Ponds, and charged with his shortage, and it is in the negotiations for a settlement of this alleged shortage that the duress is charged to have been exercised and a felony alleged to have been compounded.

The husband and wife join in the bringing of the suit, and the husband is alleged to have joined pro forma, yet the facts as to the whole transaction charging duress of both of them in the inducement to the signing are fully alleged. The property is shown to have been community property. They allege that the threats which produced the alleged duress of their wills were made to the husband; that neither of them would have signed the conveyances but for the influence of such threats; and jointly pray for judgment annulling said deed and removing the cloud from their title.

No conclusions or findings were requested of the court, and none were filed. Hence the only question for us to consider is, Was the court's judgment based upon evidence? The presumption is that the judgment for the defendant is a finding upon every issue material to support the judgment, provided there is such evidence.

It appears from the evidence that some time during the pendency of the negotiations for settlement J. H. King employed T. B. Greenwood to represent him in the negotiations. Greenwood, as such attorney, called on the Ponds with a proposition from King to deed them his home and automobile in settlement of the shortage. Greenwood says that Gerald Pond told him that, if King did not settle, they would press the prosecution, and that the general tenor of the conversations he had with the Ponds was that, if King did everything — he was to deed them the house and transfer the automobile — they would be disposed to do anything they could to get him straight and right. They made no direct promises to Greenwood that they would not prosecute, and stated that, if they were called before the grand jury, they would give their testimony, but would not initiate any prosecution—simply tell the details of the transaction.

As to the testimony given by the plaintiffs, it is sufficient to say that Mrs. King's testimony of what her husband told her of the threats made and what Greenwood told her fully sustains the allegations of her petition, but fail to sustain the petition in that she is shown to have had no communication whatever with the Ponds and no threats are testified to by her as being made to her by the Ponds. King's testimony showed the making of threats to him.

It is shown by the defendants' evidence that the plaintiff J. H. King had been working for them for...