Case Name: M. C. Moore v. A. H. Lowery
Court: Supreme Court of Texas
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1864
Citations: 27 Tex. 541
Docket Number: 
Parties: M. C. Moore v. A. H. Lowery.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Reports
Volume: 27
Pages: 541–542

Head Matter:
M. C. Moore v. A. H. Lowery.
Mere inadequacy of price, unattended by other circumstances, is not Sufficient to establish fraud in a sale.
Appeal from Walker. Tried below before the Hon. Peter W, Gray.
Trespass to try title and for damages, instituted by the appellee, Lowery, against Moore, the appellant, on the 26th of July, 1859.
The plaintiff claimed in his petition, to be the owner of one-half interest in a certain store house and lot in the town of Huntsville, which was the property in controversy. He derived his title by purchase at a sale of the H. S. Marshal, under a judgment in the U. S. District Court at Galveston, in favor of A. H. Lowery, against W. W. Leach. The return of the execution made by the marshal recited a levy upon “ one undivided fourth part interest, or William W. Leach’s interest in the store house and lot, situar ated,” &c.; but his deed to the plaintiff purported to convey all of Leach’s interest, which appears to have been one-half. Besides the interest in the store house and lot, other lands of the defendant in execution, Leach, were levied upon; and the whole of the property levied on was bought by the plaintiff at the marshal’s sale for the sum of one hundred and four dollars and fifty cents.
The defendant, having pleaded the general issue, proposed at the trial to prove by a witness the value of the premises sued for at the time of the sale, in order to show the great inadequacy of the price paid by the plaintiff. On objection of the plaintiff, the court excluded the testimony. The defendant excepted, stating in his bill of exceptions, that the gross inadequacy of price was sought to be shown “ as one among other badges of fraud,” but not specifying what other badges of fraud he purposed to put in evidence.
The court below instructed the jury, that the plaintiff could not recover more than a one-fourth interest in the property sued for. Verdict in favor of plaintiff for one-fourth interest, and for ninety dollars rent; motion for a new trial overruled, and defendant appealed.
A. P. Wiley, for the appellant.
A. H. Lowery, for the appellee.

Opinion:
Bell, J.
There is no error in the judgment of the court below. The plaintiff below showed himself entitled to recover at least one-fourth of the store house and lot in the town of Huntsville described in his petition. There is no error in the charge of the court of which the appellant has any right to complain. Nor did the court err in sustaining the objection to the admissibility of the evidence which the defendant below sought to introduce, for the purpose of proving fraud in the sale made by the marshal. Mere inadequacy of price, unattended by other circumstances, is not sufficient to establish fraud in a sale. The introduction of the testimony might have been embarrassing to the jury, and the court did right to exclude it.
The judgment of the court below is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.