Fort Worth gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1891-1898, 1895-09-26
MAY nneoMn cnLnnnA rnp.
Decision Rendered In n i,notty Case
Ia iice Counts.

In Hoe County.
Booville Texas. September ga case
which promises 10 attract State wide
attention has been disposed OF IN the dis
srict court here and viii doubtless 20 to
the higher courts. II Is n eiyn suit STYLED
a. G. Jones vs.. the San Antonio aud
Atansas Pass Railway company, n, w
klipstrin. j. NJ. Chittim. ]. c. B,Asley AMI
j. w. Flounroy. The evidence In the
case developed She following facts: In
mo year 1876 the plaintln conveyed 10 the
railway company block II III this city, hy
dead which recitcd these considerations:
one dollar and the enhancement IN
value of my property, expected 70 nc-
crue by the building OF said railway into
the county OF Bee and TO tho town of
boeville and tho further consideration OF
the establishment by said railway COM
rany Of depot In the town OF licevillc,
within onc-half mile OF the court house,
and the establishment OF depot on TIC
block Of land herein convey ed. The deed
In other respects was a stralghout war
raniy deed conveying the land TO tho rail-
way company.
Within tie last year the railroad COM
pany sold TO j. c. Beasley, j. W. Flournoy,
a lot looN2so feet off the east side
OF said block, being IN the business center
Of the town. Nendecs erected u a-slory
store and brick bank building on the
southeast corner OF said block, now oc-
cupied by tho First National bank ana
various offlcos and Jones promptly mott.
fed Vcndees that under the terms of his
conveyance tho title reverted TO him and
that he nav owned the property. after
obtaining legal opinions from three or
four Law firms ycndecH Ignored Jones'
claim and erected the improvements rs
conditioned In their purchase from the
company. Jones brought suit agninr, ven-
dees and the company to set aside their
deeds and recover the lot above described
or Its value. AIS asking damages againat
the railroad for breach OF contract for
diverting the property from the uses in
tended and npproprlatlng same for prl-
Vnto purposes.
Plaintiff brought this suit August 20.
1925, and sought TO have this decd set
aside, FIRST on tho ground OF fraud; second
on tho ground OF mutual mistake The
proof showed that plaintiff read the deed
v hen no signed It, and that he suggested
10 the convt yuneor tho form In which II
should be written The plaintiff nllGgas
that the trade by him was with Urlnh
Lott. president OF tho railway company.
The proof showed upon trial that tho
property when conveyed 10 the railway
company was worth some 500 or $500 and
that at the time OF the suit It was worth
with improvements thereon) come 5000
or 5000. No witness testified us TO tho
trade between plaintiff and Lott except
tho plaintifi himself. who stated upon the
stand that he did not procure Lofts tesu-
mony because he did not think It mecca.
sary. A jury was empaneled and the
| testimony adduced after which counsel
for defendants requested the court 70 md
verdict for defendants. The polnts OF
law was then ably argued by both sides,
Messrs. Fuller OF San Antonio and Dugat
q Minis OF Beevllle for the plaintiff. while
the Prootors OF Cuero and Beasley &
| Flournoy OF Becvllle represented the de-
PENDANT After elaborate argument the
court instructed the jury that tho evil
denco in the case was insufficient to sup
por finding IN favor OF plaintiff as
| against any OF tho defendants