King v. Russell

Citations

• 40 Tex. 124

Syllabus

<p>1. It is not improper for the district judge to correct the statement of facts - before his approval, when satisfied that any of the evidence has been omitted.</p> <p>2. The testimony of a notary touching the acknowledgment of a deed before him, to which he had omitted to affix his notarial seal, is competent to prove the execution of the deed, but not to affect the validity of its record as notice from such record to other parties.</p> <p>3. A sheriff may be called to prove that a recital in his return was made by mistake or inadvertence, but not to vary the return, in absence of fraud or mistake.</p> <p>4. Either party can use depositions when the interrogatories have been crossed; and it seems that the declarations of a party can be introduced by himself when brought out by the other party in answer to his own interrogatories, and the party bringing them out declines reading them.</p> <p>5. When a party in failing circumstances conveys property to his son, such conveyance is not fraudulent, nor does it require explanation.</p> <p>6. The circumstances which the law considers as badges of fraud only, and not fraud per se, should be submitted to the jury, so that they may draw their own conclusion as to the character of the transaction.</p> <p>7. It is only after a fraudulent purpose is shown that the burden of proof is changed, and the purchaser is required to prove that he paid value for his purchase.</p> <p>8. Until such fraudulent purpose is shown, it is error in the court to instruct the jury that a conveyance by a father in failing circumstances to a son is a badge of fraud.</p>