Skip to main content
· 12/21/1882

Parks v. Caudle

Citations

  • 58 Tex. 216
  • 1882 Tex. LEXIS 236

Syllabus

<p>1. Practice.— In trespass to try title; since the plaintiff is not required to set forth in his petition bis chain of title, it is not necessary that he should state the fact that the written evidence of any link in the chain has been lost. Being himself a competent witness under the statute, he may testify as such to the loss of a missing deed, without being required to first file the suppletory affidavit of its loss, required at common law.</p> <p>2. Lost deed — Secondary evidence.— A party claiming title to land through a lost deed, testified that'he saw it executed in 1858; searching for it in 1869, when, for the first time, he became interested from having married one having interests under it, he found it amongst the papers of one who had been county clerk. He delivered the deed to another person to have it recorded, and was afterwards informed by him that it had been destroyed by fire which burned his store. This person afterwards died, and his papers came into witness’ possession; he looked through them to ascertain the condition of his estate, and though not looking specially for the lost deed, knew that it was not among the papers of the deceased party to whom, he had intrusted it, and who reported its destruction by fire. Held, that the evidence of its former existence and loss was sufficient to admit secondary evidence of its contents.</p> <p>8. Secondary evidence.— When secondary evidence is resorted to for the purpose of establishing the former existence of a deed claimed to be lost, and no copy of which was preserved, after the lapse of twenty years a general description of the property conveyed and of the substance of the deed is all that can be required.</p> <p>4. Evidence — Witness.— A party to a suit against heirs claiming the property through their deceased ancestor, is precluded under art. 2248, R. S., not only from testifying to statements made to him by the deceased, and to transactions between the deceased and himself, but also as to any s

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • discussed below, wherein a Kentucky court had asserted continuing jurisdiction over non-resident mother and children notwithstanding the passage of three years and the entry of two orders by an Alaskan court

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Gould

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.