Sadler v. Anderson

• Decision Date: 01 January 1856
• Citation: 17 Tex. 245
• Parties: WILLIAM SADLER v. ROBERT G. ANDERSON, Guardian.
• Court: Texas Supreme Court

17 Tex. 245

WILLIAM SADLER

v.ROBERT G. ANDERSON, Guardian.

Supreme Court of Texas.

1856.

See this case as to the necessity of proving the law of another state where the rights of parties depend on transactions occurring there.

A bill of sale under execution by a sheriff in another state will be presumed to conform to the laws of such other state until the contrary appears.

It would seem to be no objection to the validity of a bill of sale under execution, where all the facts are proved, that it contained no recitals showing by virtue of what execution the sale was made.

It seems that when the law of another state, in which the transactions occurred, are not alleged and proved, the law of such other state will be presumed to be the same as our own, at least so far as our laws are founded in common right.

A bill of exceptions should state facts so as to exclude any reasonable conclusion of fact from those stated upon which the decision could be sustained.

Where a bill of exceptions merely showed that the plaintiff had offered in evidence the deposition of a witness taken in another cause between the same parties, the court said: It is not shown by the bill of exceptions, the statement of facts nor any other part of the record, that the witness was either dead or beyond the jurisdiction of the court even, which must be shown before such evidence can be received.

Where property levied on is claimed by a third person, who gives bond to try the right thereto, and the claimant establishes his right to the principal part of the property but fails as to some items, it would seem not to follow that the plaintiff in execution would be entitled to recover the costs of the suit, but that they might be apportioned by the court.

See this case as to the statute of limitations in favor of persons holding under a conveyance in fraud of creditors, where such conveyance is to minor children.

Appeal from Nacogdoches. Tried below before the Hon. Archibald W. O. Hicks.

Execution, August 25, 1852, in favor of the appellant against Robert G. Anderson, Jr., on a judgment of the district court of Nacogdoches county, rendered May 5, 1843, in a suit commenced in September, 1842; levied on eight slaves, to wit: Henry, a man; Dave, a man; Jane, a woman; Mary, a woman; Huldy, a girl; Mahala, a girl; Allen, a boy; Angelina, a girl; and two sorrel mules, and eleven hundred acres of land; all of said slaves except Henry and Huldy, claimed by Robert G. Anderson, Jr.,¹ as the guardian of his minor children, William R. Anderson, Emily L. Anderson and Miranda L. Anderson, and bond given for the trial of the right of property. The burden of proof was on the claimant.

Claimant introduced a witness who testified that he knew Samuel Hamblin in 1840-1841; that he was sheriff of Madison county in the state of Mississippi; that the signature of said Hamblin to the bill of sale to Robert G. Anderson, Sen., was genuine; on cross-examination, stated that it was not common to witness such bills of sale in Mississippi at that time; that the signature of the sheriff was evidently done with different ink from that of the only witness to the same (Robert G. Anderson, Jr.); that the witness' signature looked much more recent than the original, though he was not well enough acquainted with writing to say that they were not executed at the same time; his own opinion would be that they were not.

The claimant then offered in evidence the said bill of sale, and the plaintiff objected to its admission on the grounds stated in the opinion. Objections overruled and bill of sale read in evidence. The bill of sale will be found on page 252. It was proved by Robert G. Anderson, Jr., as a subscribing witness before the clerk of the county court of Nacogdoches county, and left for record on the same day, November 20, 1852.

The claimant then proved and read in evidence a deed of gift, dated March 28, 1840, from Robert G. Anderson, Sen., to the claimant's wards, donor's grandchildren, of the slaves, David, Alfred, Jane and Mary; also a barouche and two sorrel mules, two beds and furniture. The deed of gift was proved by Robert G. Anderson, Jr., one of the subscribing witnesses before the clerk of the county court of Nacogdoches county, and left for record July 4, 1841.

The claimant removed to Texas in 1840 or 1841, with his family and said slaves; he stated, and it became notorious, that the slaves belonged to his children (the claimant's wards); the slaves in controversy are the same mentioned in the deed of gift, and their children; in December, 1844, the claimant obtained letters of guardianship for said minors; inventory and appraisement of the slaves as their property; regular accounts and settlements, from year to year, in which the minors were charged with their board, clothing, etc., and credited with the hire of the slaves; accounts nearly balanced.

The deposition of a witness for claimant, in answer to the preliminary interrogatory, which required him to state what was the object of the suit, stated, among other matters, that only one of the mules belonged to the gift to the children; that it was a big-kneed mule called Jim, worth sixty dollars; but this witness also stated that he did not know the property until after the removal to Texas; value of the slaves proved.

Witness for claimant testified, on cross examination, that Robert G. Anderson, Sen., left Mississippi to reside in Texas in 1840 or 1841, on account of pecuniary embarrassments; that he had heard Robert G. Anderson, Jr., say that what property was there (meaning the property in his possession) was fixed in such a way that his creditors could not get at it; that the father and son came to Texas at the same time, in 1840 or 1841.

Alfred, one of the slaves mentioned in the deed of gift, died in 1850.

As rebutting testimony, plaintiff read the deposition of Samuel Hamblin, except the answer to the seventh interrogatory, which was excluded without note of any exception. Knew the Andersons, Senior and Junior, in Mississippi, from first part of 1839 until they went to Texas, which I think was sometime in the year 1840; as sheriff of Madison county, Mississippi, I sold on the 20th of January, 1840, for the sum of three thousand dollars, to Robert G. Anderson, Sen., six negroes, viz.: David, Alfred, Mary, Rose, Angelina and Jane. They were sold as the property of Robert G. Anderson, Jr., under executions in my hands against him. Afterward, and before the sale was completed, Robert G. Anderson, Sen., let one Henry Hayman have the above named negress, Angelina, at his bid, to wit, five hundred dollars, and Hayman paid me for her. As sheriff as aforesaid, I sold on the 24th of February, 1840, to John Moore, a negro girl named Nancy, under executions against said R. G. Anderson, Jr., for six hundred dollars. On the 2d of March, 1840, I sold to Wesley Drane for nine hundred dollars, a negro man named Bob, as the property of said R. G. Anderson, Jr., under executions in my hands against him. I also sold under said executions on said 2d of March, 1840, to sundry persons divers mules, corn, fodder, one wagon, smith and plantation tools, and sundry other articles of minor importance, as the property of said Anderson, Jr. The amount of sales of these chattels was, exclusive of the negroes above mentioned, sixteen hundred and twenty-seven dollars and sixty cents. Robert G. Anderson did not purchase any property, other than that mentioned herein before specifically as having been bid off by him.

I sold the property mentioned above by virtue of four writs of execution. [[Here the witness described the executions, and referred to copies thereof in a deposition of his in another case in said Nacogdoches district court.] The whole amount of said executions, including interest and all costs, was three thousand two hundred and forty-seven dollars and seventy-three cents; the whole property sold under said executions amounted to five thousand six hundred and twenty-seven dollars and sixty cents. I do not know who paid in money for property purchased at said sale, and who did not; all I know is, that enough was paid in to satisfy said executions; if anything more was paid in, I have now no knowledge of it. The answer to the seventh interrogatory was as follows:

I have no record of any advertisement of said property; and, so far I know, I kept a record in all cases where sales of property were advertised. I have no knowledge of the property of R. G. Anderson, Jr., having ever been advertised. I do not believe it ever was. The sale was principally conducted by my deputy, Mr. Jesse Brown, who was on good terms with R. G. Anderson, Sen., and R. G. Anderson, Jr., and a near neighbor to them.

In answer to the eighth interrogatory, witness said, I know very little of the pecuniary circumstances of R. G. Anderson, Sen., or R. G. Anderson, Jr., at the time. Robert G. Anderson, Jr., was then embarrassed; soon after the sale they left for Texas.

The executions referred to in the deposition of Hamblin were then read in evidence without objection. The plaintiff then gave in evidence the record of the suit in which the judgment on which the execution was issued was rendered; and it appeared therefrom that the judgment was founded on the note of R. G. Anderson, Jr., payable to the plaintiff, dated January 9, 1840, due March 1, 1841.

The contents of the deposition of Judith Anderson were not stated, nor was it stated when the suit referred to in the bill of exceptions as heretofore pending was commenced. The opinion contains a full statement of the bill of exceptions on this point.

The charge of the court was very full; but no point being made upon it, it is omitted. The plaintiff asked the court to charge the jury as follows:

That if they are satisfied from the evidence that the deed from the sheriff in Mississippi was not recorded in Mississippi, and there was no delivery accompanying said sale from the sheriff, Robert...