Evans v. Hurt
Texas Supreme Court
Appeal from Washington. Tried below before the Hon. I. B. McFarland. The titles of both of the parties litigant, to their respective and coterminous tracts, were derived by mesne conveyances from James Lynch, the original grantee, of whose headright league the tracts in question were parts. Martin Lynch, who pointed out the disputed line to the witnesses Lockhart and Cabler, was a son of James Lynch.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Washington. Tried below before the Hon. I. B. McFarland. The titles of both of the parties litigant, to their respective and coterminous tracts, were derived by mesne conveyances from James Lynch, the original grantee, of whose headright league the tracts in question were parts. Martin Lynch, who pointed out the disputed line to the witnesses Lockhart and Cabler, was a son of James Lynch. Gay, the other deceased party whose declarations were offered, was a purchaser from James Lynch of that portion of the league now claimed by Evans, the appellant, who claimed under Gay by mesne…
1Opinion of the CourtWalker, J.
The controversy in this case is about boundary lines.
The charge of the court to the jury instructing them that •the declarations of Thomas Gay, made to Horatio Chrisman, and that of Martin Lynch, testified to by Lockhart and Cabler, and *113the declarations of James Lynch, could not he received in evidence, was erroneous.
And the instruction that the declarations of a deceased person, who was in a position to possess the information and was not interested, are competent evidence on the question of boundary was a contradiction in terms to that part of the charge which peremptorally excluded so much…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Tucker v. SmithTexas Supreme Court · 1887
- Whitman v. HaywoodTexas Supreme Court · 1890
- Hurt v. EvansTexas Supreme Court · 1878
- Gilson v. Universal Realty Co.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1964