Rankin v. Rankin
Decision Date | 11 December 1912 |
Citation | 151 S.W. 527 |
Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Parties | RANKIN et al. v. RANKIN. |
Action by J. T. Rankin, executor, against L. A. Rankin and others. There was a judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals (134 S. W. 392) affirming a judgment for plaintiff, and defendants bring error. Reversed and remanded to the District Court for trial.
A. J. Harvey and Lipscomb & Poole, all of Hempstead, and W. W. Searcy, of Brenham, for plaintiffs in error. J. D. Harvey and Keet McDade, both of Hempstead, J. V. Meek, of Houston, and J. P. Buchanan, of Brenham, for defendant in error.
We copy the following findings of fact by the Court of Civil Appeals:
It is admitted by attorneys for all parties and held by the honorable Court of Civil Appeals that the declarations of Mrs. Rankin were not admissible to prove the fraud charged to have been practiced upon her by H. W. Rankin, nor to prove the undue influence claimed to have been exercised...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Stewart v. Miller
...of the grantor's children or grandchildren are excluded from her bounty in itself prove the exercise of such influence. Rankin v. Rankin, 105 Tex. 451, 456, 151 S. W. 527; Scott v. Townsend, 106 Tex. 322, 166 S. W. 1138; Beville v. Jones, 74 Tex. 148, 151, 153, 11 S. W. 1128; Salinas v. Gar......
-
Olds v. Traylor
...not have executed but for such influence. Stewart v. Miller, Tex.Civ.App., 271 S.W. 311, pt. at page 316, writ refused; Rankin v. Rankin, 105 Tex. 451, 456, 151 S.W. 527. Appellants timely presented to the court their motion for an instructed verdict, which the court refused to grant, and t......
-
Hardwick's Estate, In re
...not have executed but for such influence. Stewart v. Miller, Tex.Civ.App., 271 S.W. 311, pt. at page 316, writ refused; Rankin v. Rankin, 105 Tex. 451, 456, 151 S.W. 527.' When these and all other rules concerning undue influence are applied to the evidence presented in this action, it clea......
-
Edwards v. Williams, 3240
...long after execution, delivery and recording of the deed to defendant were not competent evidence of undue influence. Rankin v. Rankin, 105 Tex. 451, 151 S.W. 527, 530; Bonilla v. Lujan, Tex.Civ.App., 168 S.W.2d 691, 693 (R.W.M.); Bethel v. Yearwood, Tex.Civ.App., 142 S.W.2d 927, 931 (D.J.C......