Pridgen v. Furnish
Decision Date | 17 October 1928 |
Docket Number | (No. 8043.) |
Parties | PRIDGEN et al. v. FURNISH et al. |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Bexar County; Robt. W. B. Terrell, Judge.
Action by D. K. Furnish against Mary A. Pridgen, Adolph Wagner, and others, in which defendants Pridgen and others pleaded over against defendant Wagner. From a judgment for plaintiff and defendant Wagner, defendants Pridgen and others appeal. Affirmed.
Newton & Woods, Hull & Oliver, and Briscoe & Morris, all of San Antonio, for appellants.
Joe L. Hill, Church, Lawley & Graves, Cunningham, Moursund & Johnson, W. M. Groce, J. B. Lewright, and Chas. F. Guenther, Jr., all of San Antonio, for appellees.
Appellants' statement on this appeal is:
Defendant Wagner filed a motion for an instructed verdict, which was sustained by the court, and thereupon a judgment was rendered on the note in favor of D. K. Furnish for principal, interest, and attorney's fees, and also in favor of the defendant Adolph Wagner against the defendants Pridgens and Butlers on their plea setting up equitable relief for adjustment of the equities and refusing to set aside the deed from Pridgens to Wagner or to declare the same a mortgage. From this judgment the defendants Pridgens and Butlers have appealed.
Since there are no errors assigned nor objections made to the judgment in favor of D. K. Furnish, the judgment in that particular must be affirmed, but as to the controversy between Wagner on the one hand, and the Pridgens and Butlers on the other, a careful review of the record shows that it involved issues of disputed fact such as should have gone to the jury. We refrain from any discussion of the facts, but must adhere to the well-established rule that in such a case it is error for the court to take the case from a jury, thus depriving the parties of the right to a jury trial.
It was fundamental error, and for that reason the judgment of the trial court is reversed, and the cause remanded for another trial, but as to Furnish is affirmed.
On Motion for Rehearing.
There is no issue of conditional delivery in this case as pleaded; besides, there is no evidence tending to support it. A conditional delivery cannot be shown or relied upon to defeat a deed or deed of trust delivered to the grantee. Holt v. Gordon, 107 Tex. 137, 174 S. W. 1097.
The papers including the note indicate a bona fide exchange of property. The Broadway property was conveyed to appellees by the Pridgens at an agreed value of $30,000. There was a lien against lot 9, which Wagner assumed in the trade and promised to pay off. There was a note secured by a deed of trust which Wagner assumed and promised to pay. The remainder of the $30,000, after prorating taxes, was credited against the agreed price of $60,000 on the Portland Hotel property conveyed by Wagner to Mrs. Pridgen. This left the sum of $36,296.34 to be paid by Pridgen to...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Bradshaw v. McDonald
...involved an alleged parol trust rather than a mortgage (although the Court of Civil Appeals loosely spoke of it as a mortgage or trust, 11 S.W.2d 844, 846). While the early Texas cases declared that a parol trust could be proved as freely as a mortgage (Mead v. Randolph, 8 Tex. 191), we are......
-
Watson v. Toler
...authorities as Mann v. Wright, Tex.Civ.App., 269 S.W. 222; Matheson v. C-B Live Stock Co., Tex.Civ.App., 176 S.W. 734; Pridgen v. Furnish, Tex.Civ.App., 11 S.W. 2d 844, affirmed, Tex.Com.App., 23 S.W.2d 307; because, that contention is thought to run counter to the rules laid down by our Su......
-
Roberson v. Keck
...be held to be a mortgage where it appears that an existing debt was satisfied or discharged by the conveyance." In Pridgen v. Furnish, Tex.Civ.App., 11 S.W.2d 844, affirmed in Tex.Com.App., 23 S.W.2d 307, it was held that where the consideration in a deed regular on its face is shown to be ......
-
Butler v. Church, 3163.
...court in favor of Furnish for the debt and foreclosure of the lien was affirmed by the San Antonio Court of Civil Appeals. Pridgen v. Furnish, 11 S.W.2d 844. That judgment was affirmed by the Commission of Appeals, 23 S.W.2d 307. Subsequently the Pridgens and Butlers filed another suit wher......