Moore v. Stone

• Decision Date: 03 July 1896
• Citation: 36 S.W. 909
• Parties: MOORE v. STONE et al.
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

Page 909

36 S.W. 909

MOORE v. STONE et al.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas.

July 3, 1896.

Appeal from district court, Eastland county; T. H. Conner, Judge.

Action by Olin T. Moore against Heber Stone and another. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff appeals. Reversed.

D. G. Hunt, for appellant. Moore & Mack, for appellees.

HUNTER, J.

This suit was brought by appellant in the form of an action of trespass to try title, to recover his mother's one-half community interest in a league and labor of land lying in Eastland county, located by virtue of headright certificate granted to John F. Sapp on the 15th day of January, 1838, and patented to John F. Sapp on the 4th day of October, 1860. The defendants plead the general issue. Plaintiff relied on a certified copy of a transfer of the certificate, purporting to be made by John F. Sapp to Elisha Clapp, dated May 1, 1839, recorded in Houston county in 1839, where grantor and grantee then resided, and recorded in Eastland county on the 23d of December, 1876; original transfer of same certificate from Elisha Clapp to John L. Ryan, dated July 24, 1864, duly acknowledged, and recorded in Eastland county on the 23d of December, 1876; original deed from John L. Ryan to G. W. Moore, father of appellant, dated June 24, 1864, duly recorded in Eastland county on the 23d of December, 1876. The appellees filed in the court below an affidavit attacking all of said instruments as forgeries, and relied on a chain of title coming down from the heirs of John F. Sapp to themselves. Upon proof being made that appellant had received his deeds and transfers from his father, George W. Moore, more than 20 years ago, showing proper custody, and also proof of the same by the father, George W. Moore, and of the genuineness of the handwriting by two witnesses, and other facts tending to establish the transactions in fact, the court below admitted the instruments in evidence to the jury as ancient deeds. The evidence before the jury on the genuineness of the instruments was conflicting. The court gave the jury the following charge: "You are instructed that in this case the burden of proof is on plaintiff to establish by a preponderance of proof to your reasonable satisfaction that each of the deeds under which he claims are genuine and not forgeries, and a failure to do so would entitle the defendants to your verdict." The jury under this charge found a verdict for the defendants. This charge was erroneous, in that it required the jury to be reasonably satisfied of the genuineness of the deeds before they could find for the...