Case ID: posey_2/html/0456-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

R. K. Chatham v. S. D. May.
    (No. 4042.)
    Practice.— Objection to a judgment should be specific enough to point out the particular error complained of.
    Appeal from Coryell county. Opinion by Walker, J.
    Statement.— This was a suit to try the right of property to a certain gin-house, instituted by R. K. Chatham against S. D. May. The parties, with the approval of the judge, submit an agreed statement of the record, from which it appears that the plaintiff, S. D. May, brought this suit against one J. Lynn for the possession of the following described property, viz.: “ One certain frame building, twenty-six feet by fifty-six feet, two stories high, and known as Lynn’s ‘gin-house,’ situated in Coryell county, Texas, and about two hundred yards west of south of Weston’s mill.”
    The plaintiff caused the property to be levied on by writ of sequestration on the 28th of July, 1880. The sheriff valued the same at S300. On the 8th of November, 1880, R. K. Chatham also filed oath and claim-bond as claimant of the property, and received the property and still holds the same.
    The claimant tendered as the issue, which was accepted and acted upon by the court, whether he was entitled to recover by virtue of a certain deed of trust from J. Lynn to E. K. Chatham & Co., and a deed made to E. IT. Chat-ham under the same. The cause was tried by the court without a jury. Judgment was rendered for the plaintiff, S. D. Majr, and the claimant appealed and assigned as error: 1st. That the court erred in holding the deed of trust from Jose Lynn to E. K. Chatham & Co. void for want of a sufficient description of the property in controversy in this suit. 2d. The court erred in rendering judgment for the plaintiff for the property in controversy „in this suit.
   Opinion.— The first ground assigned as error is not supported by the record, as it does not appear from the judgment of the court or otherwise upon what special or particular ground the court rendered its judgment.

The only question, therefore, presented is whether the evidence sustains the judgment.

The burden of proof was on the claimant to show that he was entitled to the right and possession of the gin-house, as against the plaintiff’s claim of ownership which he asserted by virtue of a decree of the district court in favor of Eoss & Co. against said Lynn, foreclosing a lien on said building, order of sale under said judgment, sale made under that order, and purchase by the plaintiff, S. D. Ma}T, February 17, 1880. Also a judgment which said plaintiff introduced in evidence, rendered by the district court of Coryell county, in cause Flo. 817, which gives May his writ of possession of said gin-house against Lynn. It does not appear from the statement of facts that Barrett was ever authorized to act as agent by E. IT. Chatham, trustee, or that he ever sold said property according to the terms and conditions prescribed by the deed of trust. Upon these facts it is clear that no other judgment could properly have been rendered than one for the plaintiff, May. The judgment ought to be affirmed.

Affirmed.