Motor Finance Co. of Texas v. Allen

Court of Appeals of Texas

Motor Finance Co. of Texas v. Allen

252 S.W.2d 1022, 1952 Tex. App. LEXIS 1837

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedOctober 23, 1952

Docket4798

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 252 S.W.2d 1022 (Motor Finance Co. of Texas v. Allen) 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

Motor Finance Co. of Texas v. Allen, 252 S.W.2d 1022, 1952 Tex. App. LEXIS 1837 (Tex. Ct. App. 1952).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a judgment in favor of appellee against appellants for $1,680 for actual and exemplary damages for the conversion by them of his automobile. Ap-pellee owed some money to Motor Finance Company of Texas for the purchase price of his car. He owed two notes, one secured by a chattel (mortgage, one -unsecured. When the unsecured one was in default, appellants took possession of the car in the absence of appellee. The jury found that such taking amounted to conversion, and the proof supported the finding.

The trial court did not abuse its discretion in overruling appellants’ motion •for continuance. See Cain v. Farris, Tex. 'Civ.App., 212 S.W.2d 250. The application was defective under Rule 252, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. No reversible error is shown in the trial court’s permitting -appel-lee to testify to the market value of his car. Pacific Finance Corp. v. Gilkerson, Tex.Civ.App., 217 S.W.2d 440. The trial court did not err in overruling motion for instructed verdict and motion for new trial, as the evidence supports the verdict that the taking of the car was without legal authority, and was malicious. There was sufficient evidence in the case to warrant submission to the jury of Special Issue N-o. 4, which inquired whether defendants below acted with malice.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a judgment in favor of appellee against appellants for $1,680 for actual and exemplary damages for the conversion by them of his automobile. Ap-pellee owed some money to Motor Finance Company of Texas for the purchase price of his car. He owed two notes, one secured by a chattel (mortgage, one -unsecured. When the unsecured one was in default, appellants took possession of the car in the absence of appellee. The jury found that such taking amounted to conversion, and the proof supported the finding.

The trial court did not abuse its discretion in overruling appellants’ motion •for continuance. See Cain v. Farris, Tex. 'Civ.App., 212 S.W.2d 250. The application was defective under Rule 252, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. No reversible error is shown in the trial court’s permitting -appel-lee to testify to the market value of his car. Pacific Finance Corp. v. Gilkerson, Tex.Civ.App., 217 S.W.2d 440. The trial court did not err in overruling motion for instructed verdict and motion for new trial, as the evidence supports the verdict that the taking of the car was without legal authority, and was malicious. There was sufficient evidence in the case to warrant submission to the jury of Special Issue N-o. 4, which inquired whether defendants below acted with malice.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

252 S.W.2d 1022, 1952 Tex. App. LEXIS 1837, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/motor-finance-co-of-texas-v-allen-texapp-1952.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack