McDonald v. Morgan
| Decision Date | 01 January 1864 |
| Citation | 27 Tex. 503 |
| Parties | WILLIAM MCDONALD v. JAMES MORGAN. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
A verdict will not be disturbed simply because the evidence on which it was based was contradictory.
From the foundation of our government it has been, and still continues to be, the general custom of civil officers to use initial letters or parts of words for the purpose of indicating the official capacity in which they are acting. This custom has been a matter of general knowledge and notoriety, and the courts will recognize the official character of such signatures, especially when the body of the instrument, in connection with the law and the purpose of the official act, clearly denotes the signification of such initials or contractions.
A deed purporting to convey land in Liberty county was made in 1837, with four subscribing witnesses, one of whom, on the 13th of March, 1838, made affidavit to its execution before a person who certified to the affidavit by the signature of “George W. Miles, R. L. C.” Following the affidavit was a certificate of the record of the deed on the 4th of May, 1838, with the caption of “Republic of Texas, Liberty county,” and also subscribed “George W. Miles, R. L. C.” Held, in view of the act of February 5, 1841, that it appears with reasonable certainty from the certificates that the deed was proved before, and recorded by the clerk of the county court and ex officio recorder of Liberty county.
The law recognizes but one Christian name. That a witness in subscribing to a deed signs with the initial letter of a middle name, but in proving the deed by affidavit omits in his signature the initial letter, is wholly immaterial.
NOTE.--Steen v. The State, 27 Tex., 86.
APPEAL from Polk. Tried below before the Hon. James M. Maxcy.
The main facts of this case appear sufficiently in the opinion of the court. The witness referred to in the opinion subscribed the deed by the signature of “John S. Preston,” but signed his affidavit to its execution by the name of “John Preston.”
Verdict and judgment below for the plaintiff, Morgan, and new trial refused.
Cleveland and H. N. & M. M. Potter, for the appellant.
Allen & Hale, for the appellee.
This suit is an action of “trespass to try title,” brought by the appellee, Morgan, as plaintiff in the court below, against McDonald, the appellant, to recover possession and try the title of a league of land granted on the 3d of May, 1835, to William Pace, a colonist in Vehlein's colony. The errors assigned by the appellant are:
1st. In admitting the deed from William Pace to James Morgan, offered in evidence by the plaintiff.
2d. The verdict of the jury was contrary to the charge of the court and the evidence in the case.
3d. The refusal of the court to grant a new trial.
The last assignment is but a repetition of the other two; for the only grounds upon which a new trial was asked are those set forth in the first and second assignments of error. If the first assignment is not well taken, there was evidently evidence before the jury upon which they might have found their verdict. The most that can be said is that it was contradictory, both in reference to the length of possession by the appellant's vendor and the number of acres claimed by him. The court, as is well established, will not, in such cases, disturb the verdict, and it is therefore only necessary for us to consider the question presented by the first assignment of error.
The grounds of objection to the deed offered in evidence by the appellee were:
The deed...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Summer v. Mitchell
...for, and certainly was not of sufficient importance to invalidate the record.' In reaching this conclusion the court remarks that McDonald v. Morgan, supra, 'is nearly in point as the sufficiency of the signature, which, it must be assumed, was authenticated with the official seal of the no......
-
State Bank & Trust Co. v. W. O. Horn & Bro.
...at common law, and has been repeatedly announced in this state. See McKay v. Speak, 8 Tex. 376; Stockton v. State, 25 Tex. 772; McDonald v. Morgan, 27 Tex. 503; Jones v. State, 50 Tex. Cr. R. 210, 96 S. W. It is also well settled that "judicial notice will be taken of the ordinary and commo......
-
Mills v. Snyder
...that a notary public formally designate the county in which he is commissioned following or as an adjunct to his signature (see McDonald v. Morgan, 27 Tex. 503), they do require that official notarial acts be authenticated by his seal. It is presumed in the absence of evidence to the contra......
-
Wroth v. Norton
...the weight of evidence, and their verdict will not be disturbed, although the evidence may not be satisfactory to this court. McDonald v. Morgan, 27 Tex. 503;Clark v. Davis, 7 Tex. 556; Walker v. Walker, 22 Tex. 33; Branch v. Dever, 18 Tex. 611; Howard v. Booth, 16 Tex. 94;Long v. Steiger, ......