Hittson v. Burrow

Court of Appeals of Texas

Hittson v. Burrow

67 S.W. 785, 28 Tex. Civ. App. 442, 1902 Tex. App. LEXIS 156

DecidedMarch 22, 1902

StatusPublished

This text of 67 S.W. 785 (Hittson v. Burrow) 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

Hittson v. Burrow, 67 S.W. 785, 28 Tex. Civ. App. 442, 1902 Tex. App. LEXIS 156 (Tex. Ct. App. 1902).

Pincite

Opinion

STEPHENS, Associate Justice.

In an action of trespass to try title in the District Court of Palo Pinto County Burney Burrow recovered judgment against Roy Hittson for the land involved in the suit, and against Roy Hittson and the sureties on his sequestration bond for rents and costs. From this judgment an appeal was taken, but before the time for filing the record in this court had elapsed, and without its being filed here, the suit, was compromised. The terms of this compromise required Burrow to convey the land to Hjttson and pay the, fees of his own witnesses. Hittson complied fully with the.terms of the compromise on his part, by paying to Burrow .$1000, and by pay *443 ing all other costs. Burrow' made the deed to the land, but failed to pay the fees of his witnesses in’full, and they obtained an execution against Hittson and his sureties to collect the same and had it levied on land belonging to Hittson. This suit was consequently instituted to have the judgment in favor of Burrow decreed satisfied and canceled, and to have the execution for costs and the sale of the land levied on enjoined. This relief was denied appellants, except as to witness fees which Burrow had paid, and from that judgment this appeal is prosecuted.

The single question submitted for our determination is, whether the parties to the original judgment had the power, pending the appeal from that judgment, to compromise and settle the matter in dispute between them without the consent of the witnesses for the successful party, there being no charge of fraud, or insolvency even; and our conclusion is that they had. For a full and satisfactory discussion of the question we refer to the opinion of the Supreme Court of Missouri in the case of Hoover v. Railway, 21 Southwestern Reporter, 1076, which, fiilly sustains the contention in support of which it is cited by counsel for appellants, there being nothing in our statutes to change the rule there laid down. See also Extence v. Stewart, 23 S. W. Rep., 295.

Upon the court’s findings of fact and the above conclusion of law the judgment will, therefore, be reversed and here rendered in favor of appellant in accordance with the prayer of their petition.

Reversed and rendered.

Hunter, Associate Justir j, did not sit in this case.

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

STEPHENS, Associate Justice.

In an action of trespass to try title in the District Court of Palo Pinto County Burney Burrow recovered judgment against Roy Hittson for the land involved in the suit, and against Roy Hittson and the sureties on his sequestration bond for rents and costs. From this judgment an appeal was taken, but before the time for filing the record in this court had elapsed, and without its being filed here, the suit, was compromised. The terms of this compromise required Burrow to convey the land to Hjttson and pay the, fees of his own witnesses. Hittson complied fully with the.terms of the compromise on his part, by paying to Burrow .$1000, and by pay *443 ing all other costs. Burrow' made the deed to the land, but failed to pay the fees of his witnesses in’full, and they obtained an execution against Hittson and his sureties to collect the same and had it levied on land belonging to Hittson. This suit was consequently instituted to have the judgment in favor of Burrow decreed satisfied and canceled, and to have the execution for costs and the sale of the land levied on enjoined. This relief was denied appellants, except as to witness fees which Burrow had paid, and from that judgment this appeal is prosecuted.

The single question submitted for our determination is, whether the parties to the original judgment had the power, pending the appeal from that judgment, to compromise and settle the matter in dispute between them without the consent of the witnesses for the successful party, there being no charge of fraud, or insolvency even; and our conclusion is that they had. For a full and satisfactory discussion of the question we refer to the opinion of the Supreme Court of Missouri in the case of Hoover v. Railway, 21 Southwestern Reporter, 1076, which, fiilly sustains the contention in support of which it is cited by counsel for appellants, there being nothing in our statutes to change the rule there laid down. See also Extence v. Stewart, 23 S. W. Rep., 295.

Upon the court’s findings of fact and the above conclusion of law the judgment will, therefore, be reversed and here rendered in favor of appellant in accordance with the prayer of their petition.

Reversed and rendered.

Hunter, Associate Justir j, did not sit in this case.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

67 S.W. 785, 28 Tex. Civ. App. 442, 1902 Tex. App. LEXIS 156, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hittson-v-burrow-texapp-1902.