Shaw v. Gillespie

270 S.W. 1043, 1925 Tex. App. LEXIS 320
CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedMarch 27, 1925
DocketNo. 1199. [fn*]
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 270 S.W. 1043 (Shaw v. Gillespie) 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
Shaw v. Gillespie, 270 S.W. 1043, 1925 Tex. App. LEXIS 320 (Tex. Ct. App. 1925).

Opinion

WALKER, J.

In 1917, plaintiff in error, A, L. Shaw, took a deed from A. A. Hardy to certain property in the town of Newton, Newton county, Tex. This deecj recited a consideration of $2,500 for the property, $1,000 of which was paid in cash, and the balance in vendor’s lien notes. Afterwards, on the 28th day of March, 1918, A. A. Hardy executed to Mr. Shaw a release against these notes, re-citihg in the release that he had received from Mr. Shaw full payment therefor. On the same day, for a consideration of $100, as recited in the deed, A. A. Hardy conveyed to Mr. Shaw “all that certain tracts or parcels of land that I now have and own in Newton county, Tex., and being the same property that I inherited from my parents and brother, each now deceased, as well as all the real property I acquired title to by purchase and otherwise.”

A. A. Hardy died in 1922 in the insane ward of Jefferson county. This suit was instituted by his administrator, the defendant in error herein, to cancel and set aside the conveyances from Hardy to Shaw on allegations that Hardy was insane at the 'time he executed them, that Mr. Shaw was the attorney for Mr. Hardy at that time, and the deeds, in fact, were executed only for the purpose of putting the title in Mr. Shaw to be held in trust for Mr. Hardy, and that no consideration was, in fact, paid for the deeds. The petition was not sworn to. Mr. Shaw answered by demurrers, general denial, etc. On a trial to the court without a jury, a general judgment in favor of appellee was rendered, without conclusions of fact and law.

Plaintiff in error urges the proposition that there was no evidence to sustain the judgment. First, he insists that there was no evidence that Hardy was insane at the time *1044 the deeds were executed and delivered. We cannot agree with him in his construction of the evidence.

A. A. Hardy had lived most of his life in Newton county. ' For many years prior to 1915, he was in business in the town of Newton, a part of the time in partnership with his brother, Bill Hardy. After the dissolution of that partnership, A. A. Hardy conducted a business in his own name. About 1915, he moved from'the town of Newton to Kirbyville, in Jasper county, a distance of about 20 miles. However, he did ¡not move his business, but locked his store and left his stock of goods in Newton. In Kirbyville, he built a new store and bought a new stock of goods. 1-Ie continued in business in Kirby- ■ ville until about 1918, when he failed, and a large part of his property was sold under execution. During the latter part of 1915 and a portion of 1916, his niece, Miss Earl Gillespie, was in partnership with him. The evidence showed that he was a most eccentric and very peculiar man, even from the standpoint of the evidence offered by appellant. Many of the men and boys of Kirby-ville made a practical joke of him, teasing him, worrying him, and taking down his sign and rattling the door of his business house. During the last years of his life he suffered with a cancer on his face. Dr. McCreight, who was a graduate of the University of Texas, with many years’ practical experience in general medicine, besides some special study in insanity .cases and some little practice with insane patients, testified that he maintained an office across the street in Kirbyville from Mr. Hardy’s place of business, and during the time he was in business had an opportunity to and did observe his conduct and general behavior, but never examined him professionally. He further testified:

“He had a sign up there, and he would take it down and carry it in and lock up the store, and in about 30 minutes or an hour he would bring it back. I have seen him do that often in the course of a day. And I have seen him get his grip and close up, and most any time of the day go down to the train as though he was going off .on a train, and it wouldn’t be-train time at all. And I have seen him in the early morning or on a clear moonlight night carrying a parasol over his head as if he thought it was raining. Tes, sir; I have seen him pulling his whiskers. He would do that all the time — picking at his nose and pulling his whiskers.
“Q. Now, assuming, in addition to that, that a man had a store here in this county and a stock of goods here, and he moves to Kirby-ville and just locked up the store with the goods here and left it locked for several years —two or three years in that condition — and opened up another store at Kirbyville; and assuming that he would not eat with anybody, but had to have his own knife and fork and plate, and wouldn’t sit at the table with anybody; and assuming- further that when he went to church he would not sit with anybody, but carried his own stool with him, and sat on that; and assuming further that he did those things you say you observed him do— then as a hypothetical question and on that basis would you say the man was sane or insane? A. I think that taking all those things into consideration — I would not say that he was insane for locking his store up — but for all those things you mentioned, I think he is .necessarily unbalanced.”

On cross-examination, this witness said.:

“Well, the actions and things that he would do is the way I formed my opinion of his insanity.” '

The witness , Henry Fuller, after stating that he had seen him stand up before a looking glass “pulling all his whiskers out and taking pinchers in his fingers and pulling his whiskers out,” further testified:

“And then he would walk about at night with his umbrella stretched over him with the moon shining, and in the, day, any time, he would walk out with his umbrella stretched over him.
“Yes, he had a store here. In 1917, I think his store was closed up about then. The first store he had, he just locked it up with his goods in there, goods and groceries, and wouldn’t .go in there at all and wouldn’t let anybody in there, and he didn’t go in there. I never did see him in there. After he built a new store, he never did go back in that one as far as I ever saw. He néver did open it •any more that I ever seen, and the goods and groceries were all locked up. I suppose the store was closed and the door locked; I never examined the door. He left it in that condition a good while. I do not know how long it was in that condition. That store must have stayed closed there for three or four years.
“Sometimes he wouldn’t sell to nobody. Sometimes he would sell to people. I went in there once or twice to ask him for spme things, and one time I went to get a hat, and he set the hat down on the counter, and directly he said: ‘You fellows go on home, I’ll see you some other time,’ and he walked out and we walked out.
“Q. Now, from those acts and from the observation you made of him during the time you intimately knew him, would you say he was sane or insane in 1917 and 1918? A. Well, the last I knew of him, he wasn’t a sane man; he was insane. He wasn’t of a sound mind; he didn’t have a sound mind. The last time I seen him was in Kirbyville. I seen him one time after that. No, sir; I do not remember what year that was. I was passing through there, and I got Bill Holland to go with me to his store.- I suppose he had been in Kirbyville a year or-a year and a half, or maybe two years. I do not remember the year he left this town!’

J. W.

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

Related

Pryor v. Awbrey
165 S.W.2d 214 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1942)
Dallas Building & Loan Ass'n v. Henry
98 S.W.2d 1030 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1936)
Houston Land & Trust Co. v. Sheldon
69 S.W.2d 796 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1934)
Elliott v. Langham
60 S.W.2d 287 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1933)
Dallas Coffee & Tea Co. v. WilLiams
45 S.W.2d 724 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1931)
Smith v. Thornhill
25 S.W.2d 597 (Texas Commission of Appeals, 1930)
Smith v. Thornhill
12 S.W.2d 625 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1928)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
270 S.W. 1043, 1925 Tex. App. LEXIS 320, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shaw-v-gillespie-texapp-1925.