Reynolds v. Williams
| Decision Date | 31 December 1846 |
| Citation | 1 Tex. 311 |
| Parties | REYNOLDS v. WILLIAMS |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Lamar County.
A lessor cannot maintain an action for a trespass committed on the leased premises, while in possession of the tenant. The lessee alone has the right of action.
Cases decided in the district courts, after the present term of the supreme court, will not be revised or reversed in this court, on account of the verdict being contrary to the evidence, unless the record shows that a motion was made in the court below for a new trial, and overruled.
It is the duty of the judge to instruct the jury as to the law, and if they find contrary to his instructions, to set aside their verdict; but it is error for him to direct them for which party to find.
The facts of this case are stated in the opinion of the court, pronounced by Mr. Justice Lipscomb.
Martin and Allen, for appellant.
Morrill, for appellee.
No briefs filed.
This suit was brought by Williams against Reynolds, to recover damages, for violently, and with force and arms, entering the close of the plaintiff and pulling down and carrying away in wagons a large quantity of corn thereon standing.
On the trial it was proven that Williams had leased the premises on which the supposed trespass was committed, to one McInturff for one year, which had not expired when the trespass was alleged to have been committed, and that his tenant was in full and entire possession. It was also proven that Reynolds, the defendant, had purchased corn of McInturff and that he had sent his wagons for it; that McInturff himself pulled down his draw-bars and invited the wagoner to drive in; and that he assisted to load the wagon with corn. The proof showed that there was no written contract of lease, but that McInturff was to give Williams seventy-five dollars or its equivalent in corn at cash price, for the rent; and that McInturff had counted off one hundred rows of corn, and told Williams that it should not be disturbed until he had given him security for the rent. This is all the testimony which it is necessary to notice. There was a verdict for the plaintiff and Reynolds appealed. On the trial the judge charged the jury in substance that as McInturff, the lessee of the plaintiff, was in possession of the premises, and had the entire control of the same, and as the gist of the action was for the forcibly entering the close so in his possession, the plaintiff had no right of action. That for any...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
City of San Antonio v. Lane
...such an instruction is no infraction of art. 1469, Pas. Dig. The rigorous rule on this question laid down in the early case of Reynolds v. Williams, 1 Tex. 313, has been greatly relaxed in the more recent decisions. NOTE BY THE REPORTER.--Since this decision, the supreme court organized und......
-
Peck v. Cain
...not expired, and the landlord had no right to sue for any trespass on the place not involving permanent injury to the property. Reynolds v. Williams, 1 Tex. 311; Railway Co. v. Smith, 3 Tex. Civ. App. 483, 23 S. W. 89. No injury to the house was established, and Cain was not entitled to rec......
-
Knight v. Houston & T. C. R. Co.
...the owner might have recovered for injury to the sod, but the tenant alone could have sued for the value of the grass destroyed. Reynolds v. Williams, 1 Tex. 311; Railway Co. v. Smith (Tex. Civ. App.) 23 S. W. 89. If the destruction of the grass and of the sod constituted damages to the lan......
-
Badu v. Satterwhite
...dismiss the appeal. For this reason these objections to the judgment cannot be heard in this court. Foster v. Smith, 1 Tex. 70; Reynolds v. Williams, 1 Tex. 311; Cotton v. State, 29 Tex. 187; Clark & Loftus v. Pearce, 80 Tex. 151, 15 S. W. 787; Degener v. O'Leary, 85 Tex. 171, S. W. 1004. I......