Long's Adm'rs v. Steiger

• Decision Date: 01 January 1852
• Parties: LONG'S ADM'RS v. STEIGER.
• Court: Texas Supreme Court

8 Tex. 460

LONG'S ADM'RS

v.STEIGER.

Supreme Court of Texas.

1852.

Where the title of certain slaves was in question, the court said there is no doubt of the general principle that where the purchase-money is paid by one and title taken in the name of another, a resulting trust arises in favor of the former, or that if one buy as the agent of another, the title, though taken in the name of the agent, vests not in him but in his principal.

Where the evidence is conflicting, it is the province of the jury to decide. If the verdict be without or contrary to evidence, or if there be a great preponderance on the other side, it will be set aside, but not where there is a conflict or where evidence in support of the verdict may be contradicted by evidence adverse to it. (Davidson v. Edgar, 5 Tex. R., 492.) The verdict must clearly appear to be wrong to induce the court to set it aside. (Briscoe v. Bronaugh, 1 Tex. R., 340.) (Note 88.)

Where interrogatories merely point to such facts as will direct the attention of the witness to the matters in relation to which his testimony is desired, they are not leading.

Where answers to certain interrogatories were erroneously excluded by the court, but all the material facts stated therein were testified to by the witness in answer to other interrogatories, which were admitted: Held, That the appellant was not injured by the erroneous ruling of the court, and therefore it formed no ground for a reversal of the judgment.

Appeal from Harrison. This suit was brought for the recovery of certain negro slaves, named Willis and Clancy, and also some other articles of property. It is alleged by the appellants that the slaves were purchased by Robert Long, the deceased intestate, in 1841, at an official sale in Mississippi, and that they continued until his death to be his property. There is no doubt, upon the pleadings and the evidence, that the purchase was made as stated; but the appellee contends that although the bill of sale was taken in the name of Robert Long, yet that the slaves were in fact purchased by one Howell Hobbs, the purchase-money being paid by him, and that they were placed by the said Hobbs in the possession of the appellee and her husband, John B. Steiger, now deceased, with instructions to retain them until called for or otherwise directed by the said Hobbs, and in the absence of further instruction they were to remain for the benefit of Mrs. Steiger, the appellee, during her natural life, and then to go to the benefit of the children of H. Long, deceased.

Robert Long, the deceased intestate of the appellants, was the son of Mrs. Steiger, the appellee, and lived with her, even after marriage, until his death, the slaves also remaining on the premises.

R. Goode, for appellants.

C. M. Adams and J. R. Mahone, for appellee.

HEMPHILL, CH. J.

Several points...