Mynatt v. Hudson

• Decision Date: 16 April 1886
• Citation: 17 S.W. 396
• Parties: MYNATT v. HUDSON <I>et al.</I><SMALL><SUP>1</SUP></SMALL>
• Court: Texas Supreme Court

17 S.W. 396

MYNATT v. HUDSON et al.¹

Supreme Court of Texas.

April 16, 1886.

Appeal from district court, Erath county; T. L. NUGENT, Judge.

Action by W. A. Mynatt against W. T. Hudson and others for damages for conversion. Verdict and judgment for defendants. Plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Neill & Young, for appellant. Frank & Devine and Poindexter & Paddleford, for appellees.

STAYTON, J.

The amended answer alleged the purchase, by the defendant Hudson, from the appellant, of the cattle, for the value of which this action was brought, with a detailed statement of the facts which led to and resulted in the purchase. This constituted a good defense to the action, and the demurrer was properly overruled. On the former appeal the judgment was reversed, for the reason that the evidence was not sufficient to show a sale of the cattle by appellant to W. T. Hudson, but, on the last trial, though there is a conflict in the evidence, there was ample evidence offered by the appellee to show such sale. It was for the jury to reconcile the conflict, and, they having given credence to the testimony offered for the appellee, their verdict must stand.

If it could be held from the evidence that the conveyance made to Hudson was intended as a mortgage, — a holding which would be contrary to the evidence which the jury must have found to be true, — it would not change the result, for that evidence shows that Hudson, in any event, was to have possession of the cattle whenever he desired to have it. The appellant formerly lived in Johnson county for many years, but for four years past he lived in Erath county, and on the trial several witnesses, who resided in Johnson county, and had known the appellant there for many years, after having qualified themselves to testify as to his reputation for truthfulness while a resident of Johnson county, were permitted to testify that his reputation, while there resident, for truthfulness, was had. To the admission of this evidence the appellant objected, upon the ground that the witnesses could not state the reputation of the appellant, at the time they testified, in the neighborhood in which he then lived. These objections were overruled, and in this we are of the opinion there was no error. Sleeper v. Van Middlesworth, 4 Denio, 434; Rathbun v. Ross, 46 Barb. 137; Holmes v. Statler, 17 Ill. 454. If, during the long period the appellant resided in Johnson county, his general reputation for truth and veracity was bad, this was...