Case Name: G. W. Malone v. Jesse Scott
Court: Supreme Court of Texas
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1874
Citations: 40 Tex. 460
Docket Number: 
Parties: G. W. Malone v. Jesse Scott.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Reports
Volume: 40
Pages: 460–465

Head Matter:
G. W. Malone v. Jesse Scott.
:l. In a suit by a tenant for damages against the landlord for a violation of the contract of lease, where the lease was verbal and the testimony conflicting as to the terms of the contract of lease, it is error to instruct the jury that “the number of hands employed in the crop is no part of the contract.” Such instruction has the effect of excluding the testimony to that effect from the jury.
2. See a case where evidence was insufficient to support the verdict.
Appeal from Travis. Tried below before the Hon. J. !P. Richardson.
Jesse Scott sued G. W. Malone for damages, charging-that plaintiff had leased the farm of defendant for the year 1869, Malone to furnish plows, teams, etc., plaintiff" to furnish his provisions and to cultivate the farm, and the parties to share equally the crop; that plaintiff, under the contract, planted fifty acres corn, and twenty-five in cotton, and had cultivated it well; and when the crop was nearly ready to be laid by, defendant, with threats of violence and by force, drove plaintiff from the farm, and appropriated the crop — of great value (giving the value),, claiming damages punitive as well as actual.
Defendant claimed that plaintiff had neglected the-crop, had violated Ms contract, and pleaded in reconvention damages, and for labor and money expended in growing the crop, etc.
"Verdict and judgment for Scott for $800, from which Malone appealed.
Moore & Shelley, for appellant.
Smith & James, for appellee,
cited Stewart v. Hamilton, 19 Texas, 101; Russell v. Mason, 8 Texas, 228; Anderson v. Anderson, 23 Texas, 641; Long v. Steiger, 8 Texas, 462; Gamage v. Trawick, 19 Texas, 64; Briscoe v. Bronough, 1 Texas, 340; Edrington v. Kiger, 4 Texas, 93.

Opinion:
Ogden, P. J.
This is a contract by the appellee to rent and cultivate land from the appellant. The case was tried in the District Court and appealed to this court. There are but two assignments of error. The first is in regard to one of the charges given by the court to the jury, and which is in the following language : "If the plaintiff did not so cultivate the land, the defendant had. the right either to terminate the contract or to employ hands to cultivate, and charge the expenses to the plaintiff. If he chose the latter course, the plaintiff would be entitled'to his share of the crop, deducting the expense for so cultivating it." We think there is no error in this . charge. Upon the failure of the tenant to cultivate according to the contract of tenancy, the landlord has the right to consider the contract as broken and the tenancy at. an end; or he may, if he so chose, consider the tenancy as continuing, and employ hands to perform the work which the tenant was bound to do, but from any cause had failed to perform, and charge the expense of such employment to the tenant. This is in substance the very charge of the court, in very concise and comprehensive language, and of which we think appellant has no i-right to complain.
The second and only remaining error assigned is, " The verdict is contrary to the law and -the evidence."
We are unable to see wherein the verdict is contrary to the law; at least the appellant has failed to show wherein the conflict exists.
On the facts of the case there is some apparent conflict in the testimony, but the jury were the proper judges of that conflict and of the facts established, by the reconciled or creditable testimony; and in such cases it is not the province of this court to revise the verdicts of juries on the /facts, unless great apparent injury has been done.
The judgment of the District Court is therefore affirmed.
Affirmed.
Opinion delivered October 14, 1873.
Motion for rehearing was filed and continued.