King v. Worthem
| Decision Date | 14 October 1896 |
| Parties | KING v. WORTHEM, State Treasurer. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Harris county court; John G. Tod, Judge. Action by Owen King against W. B. Worthem, state treasurer. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Reversed.
James B. Goff, for appellant.
Peter King died intestate in Harris county, Tex., in 1885, in which county his estate was duly administered, and, after paying all the debts and liabilities of his estate, a balance of $696.95 was left in the hands of his administrator; and no heirs, devisees, or legatees appearing to claim the same, it was, upon an order of the county court, paid into the state treasury, and is now held by the appellee as treasurer of the state of Texas. The appellant, Owen King, is the sole heir of Peter King, deceased. These facts were alleged as the basis for appellant's recovery, and were established, if undisputed testimony is to be believed, to a reasonable certainty, yet the trial court rendered judgment against the appellant. The only question upon which there can be a particle of doubt is as to the identity of Peter King as the uncle of appellant. The only testimony on this point is the depositions of Owen King, and they are positive to the fact that he is the nephew and only heir of the Peter King who died, and whose estate was administered, in Harris county. The testimony being by deposition, this court is in as good an attitude to pass upon the credibility of the witness as the trial court; and, having no reason upon which we can found a belief that the testimony is untrue, we must reverse the judgment of the court below, and render judgment in favor of appellant for the sum sued for. The costs in both courts will be paid by appellant. Reversed and rendered.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Perkins
...App.) 162 S. W. 369, 370; Houston v. Holmes (Tex. Civ. App.) 262 S. W. 849, 850; Long v. Shelton, 155 S. W. 945, 946; King v. Worthem (Tex. Civ. App.) 37 S. W. 1133. The court did not err in refusing to submit any of said requested issues. Neither did he err in failing to submit the substan......
-
Dunlap v. Wright
...W. 369, 370; Houston v. Holmes (Tex. Civ. App.) 262 S. W. 849, 850; Long v. Shelton (Tex. Civ. App.) 155 S. W. 945, 946; King v. Worthem (Tex. Civ. App.) 37 S. W. 1133. The last case emphasizes the fact that the testimony of the interested party was given by deposition, as was the testimony......
-
Schucht v. Stidham
...W. 369, 370; Houston v. Holmes (Tex. Civ. App.) 262 S. W. 849, 850; Long v. Shelton (Tex. Civ. App.) 155 S. W. 945, 946; King v. Worthem (Tex. Civ. App.) 37 S. W. 1133." See Still v. Stevens (Tex. Civ. App.) 13 S. W.(2d) 956; Sigmond Rothschild v. Moore, 22 S.W.(2d) 535, by the Beaumont Cou......
-
Long v. Shelton
...inference can be drawn from their testimony, the court may assume the truth of their statements. Thorn v. Frazer, 60 Tex. 259; King v. Worthem, 37 S. W. 1133; Henderson v. Jones, 2 Posey, Unrep. Cas. 230; Teal v. Terrell, 58 Tex. 257. In this case there is no circumstance which in the least......