Young v. Young
Texas Supreme Court
Appeal from T.itus. Tried below before the Hon. William S. Todd. Suit by appellee against appellant, alleging that plaintiff and defendant, being the joint owners of two tracts of land, one for 320 acres and the other for 160 acres, agreed to divide the same, by defendant taking the 320 acre tract, and defendant the 160 acre tract, with the further stipulation that defendant should pay plaintiff $160 in cash, and assist plaintiff to make certain improvements on a tract of…
Read the full summary
Appeal from T.itus. Tried below before the Hon. William S. Todd. Suit by appellee against appellant, alleging that plaintiff and defendant, being the joint owners of two tracts of land, one for 320 acres and the other for 160 acres, agreed to divide the same, by defendant taking the 320 acre tract, and defendant the 160 acre tract, with the further stipulation that defendant should pay plaintiff $160 in cash, and assist plaintiff to make certain improvements on a tract of plaintiff near by, and allow plaintiff theuse of an eight acre field on the 320 acre tract for four years. Plaintiff…
1Opinion of the CourtWheeler, J.
The insertion in the agreement, of the words “ for no consideration,” is significant of a fraudulent purpose on the part of the defendant in preparing the agreement; and taken in connexion with the evidence, sufficiently shows a deliberate, premeditated design to deceive, impose upon and overreach the plaintiff; that the defendant purposely induced the belief on the part of the plaintiff that he would abide by and perform his agreement, when he was providing the means to evade and avoid its performance. The evidence of fraud upon the face of the instrument itself, was sufficient to let in…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Lindley v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1909
- People v. SullivanNew York Court of General Session of the Peace · 1907
- People v. SullivanNew York Court of General Session of the Peace · 1907