Dunman v. Cloud

22 S.W. 529, 3 Tex. Civ. App. 457, 1893 Tex. App. LEXIS 290
CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedMay 24, 1893
DocketNo. 187.
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 22 S.W. 529 (Dunman v. Cloud) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Dunman v. Cloud, 22 S.W. 529, 3 Tex. Civ. App. 457, 1893 Tex. App. LEXIS 290 (Tex. Ct. App. 1893).

Opinion

KEY, Associate Justice.

This is an action of trespass to try title. Appellees claim the land as heirs of D. W. Cloud, deceased, who was killed at the Alamo, March 6, 1836. Their relationship to him as nephews and nieces is shown by the testimony, and it is also shown that he had never been married. It was not shown, however, whether his father and mother were living or dead when the case was tried in the court below.

*458 If D. W. Cloud’s parents, or either of them, survived him, they inherited the land in controversy, and appellees had no title thereto unless such parent is also dead. Goodrich v. O’Connor, 52 Texas, 375; Hardy v. Hanson, 82 Texas, 102.

If both parents survived D. W. Cloud, and one has since died and the other be still living, appellees’ interest in the land would be only half the amount it would be if both were dead.

It is true, that if these parents be living they must necessarily be very old, but the testimony is not such as to warrant us in presuming that they are dead. If they are not living, that fact can be easily shown; and such being the case, parties basing rights upon the theory of their death ought not to ask the courts to infer that fact from circumstances, unless the inference be one which irresistibly follows proof of the circumstances.

Appellants sought to avail themselves of the omission in appellees’ testimony in regard to the parents of D. W. Cloud, by a special charge asked and refused, and by motion for new trial, which was overruled. The action of the court in these particulars was erroneous.

The other assignments have been considered, but are not regarded as meritorious.

For the error indicated, the judgment is reversed and cause remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

Delivered May 24, 1893.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Steddum v. Kirby Lumber Co.
154 S.W. 273 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1912)
Villalva v. Brown
148 S.W. 1124 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1912)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
22 S.W. 529, 3 Tex. Civ. App. 457, 1893 Tex. App. LEXIS 290, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dunman-v-cloud-texapp-1893.