Motor Finance Co. of Tex. v. Allen, 4798
| Decision Date | 23 October 1952 |
| Docket Number | No. 4798,4798 |
| Citation | 252 S.W.2d 1022 |
| Parties | MOTOR FINANCE CO. OF TEXAS et al. v. ALLEN. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
S. D. Bennett, J. S. Maida Jr., Beaumont, for appellant.
Walley & Robichau, Beaumont, for appellee.
This is an appeal from a judgment in favor of appellee against appellants for $1,680 for actual and exemplary damages for the conversion by them of his automobile. Appellee owed some money to Motor Finance Company of Texas for the purchase price of his car. He owed two notes, one secured by a chattel mortgage, one unsecured. When the unsecured one was in default, appellants took possession of the car in the absence of appellee. The jury found that such taking amounted to conversion, and the proof supported the finding.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in overruling appellants' motion for continuance. See Cain v. Farris, Tex.Civ.App., 212 S.W.2d 250. The application was defective under Rule 252, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. No reversible error is shown in the trial court's permitting appellee to testify to the market value of his car. Pacific Finance Corp. v. Gilkerson, Tex.Civ.App., 217 S.W.2d 440. The trial court did not err in overruling motion for instructed verdict and motion for new trial, as the evidence supports the verdict that the taking of the car was without legal authority, and was malicious. There was sufficient evidence in the case to warrant submission to the jury of Special Issue No. 4, which inquired whether defendants below acted with malice.
Affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Watson v. Godwin
...S.F. Ry. Co. v. Brooks, 63 Tex.Civ.App. 231, 132 S.W. 95, err. ref.; Jinks v. Jinks, Tex.Civ.App., 205 S.W.2d 816; Motor Finance Co. v. Allen, Tex.Civ.App., 252 S.W.2d 1022'. Bray v. Miller, 397 S.W.2d 103. (Tex.Civ.App., Dallas, 1965, no writ) See also Smith v. Crockett Production Credit A......
-
Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Jones
...unless the record discloses a clear abuse of discretion. Mitchell v. Mitchell, Tex.Civ.App., 233 S.W.2d 187; Motor Finance Co. of Texas v. Allen, Tex.Civ.App., 252 S.W.2d 1022 (er. ref. n. r. e.). In determining whether the trial court has abused its discretion in denying a motion for conti......
-
Bray v. Miller
...S. F. Ry. Co. v. Brooks, 63 Tex.Civ.App. 231, 132 S.W. 95, err. ref.; Jinks v. Jinks, Tex.Civ.App., 205 S.W.2d 816; Motor Finance Co. v. Allen, Tex.Civ.App., 252 S.W.2d 1022; Chandler v. Brown, Tex.Civ.App., 301 S.W.2d 720. The exercise of the trial court's discretionary power to grant or d......
-
American Bankers Ins. Co. v. Fish, 7684
...Johnson, supra; Mitchell v. Mitchell, 244 S.W.2d 187 (Tex.Civ.App.-Amarillo, 1950, no writ); Motor Finance Co. of Texas v. Allen, 252 S.W.2d 1022 (Tex.Civ.App.-Beaumont, 1952, writ ref'd n.r.e.). Under the record before us we believe it would be improper for us to hold the trial court in th......