Case ID: sw_207/html/0572-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "LEVY, X", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

WILLIAMS v. OGERLY.
    (No. 1976.)
    (Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Texarkana.
    June 27, 1918.)
    Appeal and Erroe i@=31010(1) — Review — Findings of Fact.
    The court’s findings of fact, not being entirely unsupported by or contrary to the evidence, will not be disturbed on appeal.
    Appeal from District Court, Fannin County.
    Action by B. H. Williams against Charles Ogerly. From an adverse judgment, plaintiff appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Appellant brought the suit against the ap-pellee to recover the sum of $1,900, alleged to be due and owing as the balance of the purchase price of a certain tract of land sold by the appellant to the appellee. Appellant in the petition asked that an equitable lien be fixed and foreclosed on the land. The ap-pellee answered by denial, and specially averring that the real consideration agreed to be paid for the land was $10 an acre for the tillable land, and a certain sand bar to be conveyed free of charge. And by cross-action the appellee sought to recover the sum of $1,349.50, alleging that the appellant represented that there were 352½ acres of tillable land, while the survey on the ground showed only 219 ½ acres.
    The court made the following findings of fact:
    
      “(1) I find that the deed from the plaintiff to the defendant, of record in Book 140, page 562, of Fannin County Deed Records, does not state the actual consideration.
    “(2) I find that the real consideration for the execution of said deed was the payment by the defendant to the plaintiff of $3,525, with the agreement between said parties that if such parts of such land as designated in the memorandum in writing of date February 19, 1916, signed by the plaintiff and introduced in evidence, should measure more than 352½ acres, then defendant was to pay for any excess of such land at the rate of $10 per acre.
    “(3) I further find that under such trade and agreement plaintiff was to convey to defendant all of the sand bar and untillable lands, not embraced in such memorandum agreement, free of charge.
    “(4) I find that of the tillable land, as specified in said memorandum agreement, there are only 219½ acres.”
    On these facts the court entered judgment denying the plaintiff a recovery against the defendant, and denying the defendant a recovery on his cross-action against the plaintiff. The plaintiff appeals.
    There is evidence warranting the findings of fact made by the court, and they are here sustained.
    B. B. Sturgeon, of Paris, for appellant.
    0. A. Wheeler and Cunningham & McMahon, all of Bonham, for appellee.
   LEVY, X

(after stating the facts as above). The appellant’s assignments of error challenge the findings of the trial court as being contrary to and unsupported by the evidence. After a careful review of the evidence in the record, it may not properly be said, we conclude, that the court’s findings of fact are either so entirely unsupported by or contrary to the evidence as to warrant setting them aside. And it is further concluded that the judgment entered by the court was in accordance with the proper legal effect attaching to the facts found by the trial court.

There being no reversible error in the record as complained of, the judgment is affirmed. 
      <§=»For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in "all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes