Fort Worth gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1891-1898, 1893-01-27
The HIGHER COURTS.
Decisions al Length Of lho Fort Worth and
Austin Civil Courts o. Appeal


Court Of Ciyn Appeals First district; old
ID. rarlton chiof Justice. ". o. Hea9 ana
w Stevens. associate Jusuces' W. a."
Hun. clerk.
40. ~. X. BAYLOR, appellant vs. ; 1osspn
H. Brown, appellee. Appeal If'"
county
OPINION
ON thc an Of September. 1885. y. \. iul-
man being indebted 10 Joseph IL. BrgWNt
the appellee in about the sum OF 1870
conveyed to him his entire st9th on n.
fixtures. etc. am invoice Of when wac l"it5
taken ut their market value 9l9 vieit.
given unnu this debt therefor. rms NH'us
was subsequently asCertaincd 10 ne a'yui
S33Ou This transfer was w WrltihS, w"
uD1n the sumc day and as part oI VIZ
apuclipo another writing, conveying w., lllii
ain his notes. accounts and ouistahulnEsi
the purpose OF this instrument bghE fC,,Ii
fo be- the further securing OF sHid inucpltu
ness A fow days after the execution or
these instruments SEVERAL NJ the credlloi'
of Putnam attached the goods ~ euhuv'
ycrsy and this suit was instituted W. 1
ppilpe To recover 81 0ppcllnul as sherlu 'he
value thereof alleging CONVERSION Ivy MN
Boy reason OF his having levied sald Ntthch-
Wcnts thereon ne the properly on inlhtu.
The Fuurif defended ON the ground uot inc
irmsfcr from Pntman TO appellee was M
fraud Oh the creditors Of the former. pom
the trial the court refused 20 submit the
question " fraud To The jury and M rWrct
pf uptuion tina this action " tup court was or
rur. We believe that the two Instruments
must Doc construed together us parts ol
the same transaction aud when $50 Cnnsid-
eraJ tUcre Isl evidence I'M tho record which
tends tO show that tho value OF the prop
crty transferred was greatly in excess or
the debt to Dc paid or secured VI the lIaus-
Ger OF The goods could toe considered as %
separate transaction from that of the note g
and accounts. the action Of the court could
bc sustained; there being nothing Ia me
evidence attacking amy. part OF appellee
debt. aud tUo value 81 the goods being
much less han hc amount OF such debt.
there would he nothing I'm the evidence
raising the issue of fraud us 30 this trans
far but whether the transfer Of thu notes
and accounts is 10 be taken aR o sale or
uulv Us q mortgage N the value thereof,
when added 90 the value Of the goods great
ly exceeded the amount OF the debt ~
would 40 least be O badge OF fraud IN foct,
and zoo such case its eject would be Tor
tue decision of the Jury under appropriate
instructions, and without calling pecan NJ
tputlDu thereto. we are oi opinion ihal UltIe
was other evidence ihui appellants was
entitled io have thcIn pass upon. u rs
true M the transfer of the notes ana ne
counts ~ only to Ice construed ns % mort
gage. the fact that their value might great.
ly exceed the debt would not render thc
transaction void IN Jaw. simmons Hard
ware Co. vs.. Kaufman 81 Bungc, a. Texas,
1850: hut oven in such case y would be n
badge ~ fraud whore fraud In fact b. al
lcgel ne the pleading. jackson W. Hardy
% Texas. as. Iiass VS.. Kraus, 10 TcNus
tOO
N the two Instruments are to he con.
struCd us purtg of the same transaction as
We have hold thoy must. bc then 40 is hard
/ Nv necessary for us to add thnt fraud in
part OF Hu prtrc transaction win yltlat,
| the whole. lOpprnhoimrr ys. Hulu. tS leNh
| at2.tW
For the refusal of the court below 10 sub
| mit the issue of fraud iu fact to the jury
! we are of opinion that the Judgment ~ th,
| court hrlnw should Doe reversed ANA the
| cause rrmaudpl.
! stephens associate Justice disqualified
] and mot sitting tSiWcU
/ HEAD. Associate Justice.