Hinson v. Ely Walker & Co.

Citations

• 65 Tex. 103
• 1885 Tex. LEXIS 319

Syllabus

<p>1. Charge.—See statement of facts for charge held correct.</p> <p>2. Evidence—Vendor—Declarations after sale.—It is well settled that the declarations of a vendor made after the sale, and without the presence or knowledge of the vendee, cannot be introduced to defeat the vendee’s title to the property conveyed. (Thompson v. Herring, 27 Tex., 282 ; Carleton v. Baldwin, 27 Tex., 275, etc.)</p> <p>3. Same—Loan.—The rule applies to other transactions as well as sales, and the declarations of a lender, made after the loan and without the presence or knowledge of the borrower, can not be introduced to prove that the loan was simulated.</p> <p>4. Purchase money—Vendee—Simulated loan.—If a party purchase goods with money acquired through a valid loan, the goods are his ; if the loan was simulated to work a fraud, the title to the goods is in the lender.</p> <p>6. Evidence—Agent—Declarations.—Where the acts of an agent may be shown to affect his principal, his declarations relating to the act made while transacting the business, may ordinarily be shown.</p> <p>6. Same.—The mere fact that an agent was authorized to buy goods for his principal would not authorize the introduction of declarations made by him, unknown and unauthorized by the principal, to the effect that he (the agent) was the owner of goods then in the store or to be bought. (Story on Agency, 134-139 ; 1 Greenl. Ev., 113, 114.)</p> <p>7. Evidence—Declaration—Fraud.—A stock of goods was levied on as property of S., and a claim bond was filed by defendant; claimant alleged that the goods were his, but admitted that he borrowed the money with which they were bought from S. Held:</p> <p>(1) That it was admissible to prove declarations of S., made prior to the time claimant obtained the money from him, tending to show a fraudulent intention on the part of S. to place his means beyond the reach of his creditors.</p> <p>(2) . The jury could then determine from the other evidence whether the claimant had knowledge o