Travis v. Pratt
| Decision Date | 05 July 1923 |
| Docket Number | (No. 926.) |
| Citation | 254 S.W. 506 |
| Parties | TRAVIS v. PRATT. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Sabine County Court; W. C. Arnold, Judge.
Action by H. L. Travis against G. E. Pratt. From an adverse judgment, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
Goodrich, Davis, & McWilliams, of Hemphill, for appellant.
Minton & Lewis, of Hemphill, for appellee.
O'QUINN, J.
Travis sued Pratt in the county court of Sabine county for the value of one bale of cotton. He alleged that he was the owner of a bale of cotton weighing 490 pounds, and of the value of $205.80, which on or about February 21, 1920, Pratt unlawfully converted to his own use and benefit. Pratt answered by general demurrer and general denial. Pratt died before the suit was tried, and his heirs were made parties to the suit.
The case was tried before a jury upon special issues, upon their answers to which judgment was rendered for defendant, and from which judgment this appeal is taken.
The only issue in the case is one of fact, whether or not Pratt converted to his own use and benefit a bale of cotton belonging to Travis. On this issue the court charged the jury:
The jury answered, "No." The other questions were not answered.
Appellant's first proposition is:
"Where the verdict of the jury has no support whatever by the testimony, it should be set aside and a new trial granted."
This is a sound proposition of law, but we think the verdict has support in the evidence. The assignment is overruled.
The question whether the evidence showed a conversion of the indentical bale of cotton sued for was one of fact for the jury, and they found against appellant's contention, and, without setting out or discussing the evidence, we will say that in our opinion it abundantly supports the finding of the jury.
Appellant complains of the court's charge as to what constituted...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bell v. New Jersey Ins. Co.
...S.W. 387; Turner v. Texas Electric Service Co., Tex.Civ.App., 77 S.W.2d 728; Teston v. Root, Tex.Civ.App., 95 S.W.2d 524; Travis v. Pratt, Tex.Civ. App., 254 S.W. 506; San Antonio Traction Co. v. Settle, 104 Tex. 142, 135 S.W. 116; Emberlin v. Wichita Falls Ry. Co., Tex.Com.App., Sect. B., ......
-
Cabaniss v. Grayburg Oil Co.
...they being immaterial because of the jury's finding on the controlling issue in the case, it may be treated as harmless. Travis v. Pratt (Tex. Civ. App.) 254 S. W. 506; Federal Life Ins. Co. v. Sweeney (Tex. Civ. App.) 18 S.W.(2d) 702; Oppenheim v. Swinehart Tire & Rubber Co. (Tex. Civ. App......
-
National Life & Accident Ins. Co. v. Hines
...as harmless under the following authorities: Becker et al. v. Wm. Cameron & Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 22 S.W.(2d) 951; Travis v. Pratt (Tex. Civ. App.) 254 S. W. 506; Federal Life Ins. Co. v. Sweeney (Tex. Civ. App.) 18 S.W.(2d) 702; Oppenheim v. Swinehart Tire & Rubber Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 22 S......