Fort Worth gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1891-1898, 1893-01-19

eo. 10 asf,ud ease 10. a. NJ. a. Byars ~
b. Wills Il Bro. DO the dsuiet se,t ~ y.
Wuhanpr county, Texas, hut ~ Ais" ~,
Injunction asked thcrein 20 pe u'eS batt
paving All e1sts in said case, which shA' ~
adiudged against her f,rti,sr
agree io release and uut claim 'o wv silt"
n-lrfv IN the second part an their Hgni. tiie
aud interest and ciTim in ana 20 N.t7 w.
N. T. ~. ~ aud i1. DOB Ninek no. "l-s 49,
cupied as O. homestead hy pgit1 vttnt
second part IN consideration ~ an Wni.u
said Marty OF the second part nNete W
release and quit claim 20 slld phtNe5 ".
the FIRST part ail her right. uuc anu ,lul,l
n and 90 ihe following lots mia pll,tls
0f land iu The town ~ Vernon. Wilhafsf
county. Tex
an said property being and lying IN said
town ~ Vernon. md the audiuou Oh'e'''
in WilhArger county. Tex.
Aud The said party Of the second part fur
Their agrees 10 dismiss case No. -, ~ a.
Byars ys y. j. Willis 3 Bro. and No. 81,
district court docket In Wilbarger co., Tex.
and 90 pay an costs in said two cases. AMI
~ IL further agreed. in consideration or nc
above quit claim deed. go be executed ,bg
said pnrty Of the Second part furher ~
lease on claims for damages asalu7t 'hs
said party " the nrst part ny Ieil'oh ~
the suits judgments. levies heretofore ulhue
and instituted by the said r. J. Willis Y
H Rro "srinst a Al gvars ana herself
Wit1ess our hands, this 18th day OF May
1856
Witnesses.
HENRY FISCH. 81. a. BYARs. un,
DAVE N'RiUDF r. a. WILLIS s. BRO.
Per Geo Dich, Agent.
In accordance with this agreement, there
was executed by appellee, contemporaneou,-
ly Herewith a Quit claim deed TO appel
lnuts to certain lots Of land therein ser
ont Tor the recifed consideration ~ 81, auu
! % release ard quit claim 10 certain otuei
lots 81 land therein set ont eNcrutcu ul
appellants Go appellee. This decd cuntHlucd
tho further recital that, my husband, g.
| NJ Byura. having LEFT aud nb1nlnucd me
| nnd now being ap-lnt rom .ns s', ,tt
| having uCCu Gwgy for months, / make wv
| Qult claim and release aa the remaining
/ manager VI the community property ana
/ to further project So interest va "hfl
/ respects. % was - quit claim deed 10 the
| usuui form. fccitiug only The considerations
| above specified. The contention OF appellee
| was that these writings did not contain
| the ful contract; ana she offered AM
| was permitted over the objection OF appel
! lnnts to prove orally that. IN ADDITION ~
| the matters settled aud agreed upon a'
| shown by these writings. 10 was furthei
| agreed hy appellants agent brOrgc ilch
! thar n crrtniu Judgment which had beer
| recovered lu 1sS3 10y appellants against g.
| NJ. Byars, boz thc district curt uf Galveston
| county. for over 5000 should Zoe also con
| sdprcd settled ON that day and by th'
| agreement then entered Into. md that there
| after said Dlehl would mark the sumo SAT
| listed ON the record uf said suit in calves
| tom county. Appellants objected To the M
| PRODUCTION OF tuis evidence us being Viola
| tive of the rule which excludes oral tes
| umony where 10 has the effect OF NHryinl
% contrmpornneous written insuunenl. Az
| police alleged that either through mistake
| or fraud thls part uf the agreement WA
not specified iu the written Instrument
above set out The testimony, however
| does not seem to have been upon thu
| ground and the court iu the charge, dc
| NOT submit that issue 10 the Jury. but Ia
| struc,cd them that n az the Time of th,
! eNcgution and delivery. Of me deed IRON
| NJ. A. Byurs to plaintiff below. u was nm
| dcrstood and agreed hy both defendant uuJ
! plunuus agent. George Dichl. that tbs
| decd should Doe accepted 10y plaintiffs 10
| fuu satisfaction and payment Of said iudg
| mont and THAI said Diehl had authority {,
| settle said Judgment That they should uu,
ln fuyur 0f appellee upon that issue. TIL
! charge is also complained Uf hy appellants
| The hrst contention 81 appellee, ln supper
| NJ the action OF the court, Is. Where writ
ten Instruments fOrm d lmri NJ "a more com
prphcnSyc transaction, the terms " whicl
| are not attempted 90 be expressed iu writ
| Ing purul evidence az TO such parts nf th
| transaction as were not reduced 90 Writinj
| iH admissible, citing the case or Hhomn
IS. Hammond. 81 Texas, ~, and Othp
! cases THESE cases announce the currec
! rule where mo- attempt rs made to reduce tn
! more comprehensive agreement TO writing
That, in our opinion, o. not ibis ease. Her
|
| 80 writing an agreement comprehension
| several different transactions. The agree
niece ON Us iuce appears tu be complete
| Az to whether there was or was not. a
the time as " pnrt % the Settlement, a
| additional TelbHl agreement 20 satisfy th
additional verbal aRrcCmcut iu satisfy ia
! original judgment. The statements on "a
| ln hurp contradiction To prey eLt such
! result IA evidently one OF the objects Il
the rulc which holds the writing to contai
the entire tWrcGmcht where ON Us face
| appears Go De- though not n fact, complet,
and N 10 NOT shown that thia appearance a
| completeness results from fraud. accdeu
or mistake (Bclcher VS.. Mulhal a SEQ
ling, ~ Texas, H. and cases then citpdl
Appellants ErcuuU p0utnr iiru I. thar Dur,
evidence was uuuissuhlc 10 show tnat th
consideration Tor the uult cluim deed OK,
cutcd by appellee was not fully espresso
but that iu addition to the consideration
named 10 wng agreed hat the Judgment j
! W'"Flon Hhould pc satisfied; This pr0pOs
| ZION seems tO have been decided again,
| appellee by W. at a former day OF th
| form in She following eases: Weaver nj
thp city ot Gainesville and l,uhrrcht "
| l'oNcIN
our construction ~ The written instri
2 meut executed ns above set forth aud cnl
| uitutiug one transaction, leads 10 the col
| Clusion That oral testimony TO incOrporlI
, ! n3 part thereof, the agreement 10 snttsi
The Galveston Judgment was erroneous nr
uecessliatcs q reversal or The iudgmen
! We are, however, Of the opinion lhnt n
( court did not err IN refusing 10 strike 81
. | unpcllrc'N plea IA vccuuNrutiou.
The questions raised bv the Other nsslg
meuts ~ error are NOT likely 10 als, mlt
, another uim and hence need not be co
1 sldersd
{ The judgment viii be reversed ana n
cause remAndcl tSlmedl
STEPHENS, Associate Justice.
-------