Thomas v. Ingram
| Citation | 20 Tex. 727 |
| Parties | NATHAN THOMAS v. JOHN INGRAM. |
| Decision Date | 01 January 1858 |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
That the court did not, in charging the jury, assume as undoubted a leading fact which was clearly proved, but charged, hypothetically, upon the negative of such fact, will not cause a reversal of the judgment, where there is no cause to believe that the jury were misled.
Appeal from Fayette. Tried below before the Hon. James H. Bell.
Suit by appellee against appellant, to establish a boundary line. The call in both titles, which were both issued in 1831, was for a straight line, same course, and same terminus on the river; one calling for the other. The defendant claimed that the line as marked on the ground was a broken line, making a difference of nineteen acres in a length of 3,663 varas. It was proved beyond doubt that the line had been run and marked, but not plainly; and the evidence failed to establish, with any degree of certainty, the broken line. The surveyor who ran the line originally was a witness for plaintiff, and testified that he ran the line, and had a blazer who was indolent, and avoided bad places; marking fore and aft, except where the tree was some distance to the side. He did not think it at all probable that he ran a broken line; but would not say it was impossible. The court instructed the jury, very distinctly, in addition to what is stated in the opinion, that the marked line, if it could be identified, would control the course; and if marked as claimed by defendant, they should find for him.
W. R. Jarmon, for appellant. It is insisted that the fourth charge given to the jury by the court below, misled them from the true point in controversy. The testimony of first witness of appellee, Thomas H. Mays, clearly proves that the line between the Berry league and the Ingram quarter, which is the line in controversy, was originally run and marked, before Ingram received his title papers to the same as a colonist. It was further conclusively proven by said Mays, and by the many admissions of Ingram to other witnesses, that he, Ingram, was present when the line was run. Ingram pointed out a China bush to his witness Price, and others, witnesses both for appellant and appellee, by which he said the line between him and the Berry league was run. The fourth charge leaves this question in doubt, and the matter is left to the jury to determine whether it was run or not. The court should have instructed the jury, that the line had been run, and left them to determine where that was. It is no invasion of the province of a jury, where the evidence is all on one side, for the court to instruct...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Johnson v. International & G. N. R. Co.
...submits as an issue a positive and undisputed fact to doubt the existence of such fact that such a charge is ground for reversal. Thomas v. Ingram, 20 Tex. 727. Under the pleadings and the evidence in this case the jury could not possibly have been induced by the charge to doubt in the leas......