Prather v. Wilkens

Citations

• 68 Tex. 187
• 4 S.W. 252
• 1887 Tex. LEXIS 661

Syllabus

<p>1. Evidence.—Testimony to establish the_ contents of a telegram is not admissible in the absence of evidence showing its loss or destruction:</p> <p>2. Evidence.—A charge to the effect that the jury should not regard a deed read to them as evidence of title, when the grantee, who was a party to-the cause, had filed a diselaiiner’of any interest under the deed, was not a charge upon the weight of evidence.</p> <p>3. Same.—In determining whether a deed was intended by the parties to it as a mortgage, it was error to instruct the jury, in effect, that the instrument must be regarded as a deed unless the preponderance of evidence clearly shows that the same was intended by the parties at the time of execution to operate as a mortgage. A preponderence of evidence is sufficient, and the use of the word cleoA’ly in the charge was misleading.</p> <p>4. Ratieaction.—If one accepts and records a deed, which was taken in settlement of accounts by one who assumed to act as his agent, after being notified of the settlement, he is thereby estopped from denying the authority of the agent, and is bound by the terms of the settlement made.</p> <p>4. Charge op Court.—A charge of the court (when the issue was whether an instrument was intended as a deed or mortgage) to the effect that if the jury believed that the instrument was intended to secure a debt, that it was a mortgage, and that the grantor in the instrument had the right to pay the debt at its maturity and have the property reconveyed, was misleading, since it left the jury to infer that unless the debt was paid at maturity, the debtor’s right to a reconveyance was forfeited.</p>