Case Name: Flanagan v. Ward
Court: Supreme Court of Texas
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1854
Citations: 12 Tex. 209
Docket Number: 
Parties: Flanagan v. Ward.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Reports
Volume: 12
Pages: 209–210

Head Matter:
Flanagan v. Ward.
'Where there is no statement of facts, it will be presumed that the verdict was warranted by the evidence; and where the facts are not presented by the record this Court will not undertake to revise the rulings of the Court below, upon instructions to the jury.
-Quere, as to the measure of damages, in case of eviction, where the vendee was induced to purchase, by the fraudulent representations of the vendor, and has made improvements on the land ?
In order to entitle the vendee to recover at all on the ground of eviction, he must have been evicted legally or by paramount title, which must be alleged.
"Where the vendee claims in reconvention on the ground that he was induced to purchase, by the fraudulent representations of the vendee, he ought to allege, it seems, that he had not access equally with the vendor, to the proper sources of information.
Error from Eusk.
Lewis and Smither, for plaintiff in error.
Stedman and Robertson, for defendant in error.

Opinion:
Wheeler, J.
There is in the record no statement of facts; •and we must presume in support of the judgment that the verdict was warranted by the evidence.
There manifestly was no error in sustaining exceptions to the defendant's plea in reconvention. The question has not been made in argument for the appellant, and it is not necessary to determine in this case what is the rule as to the measure of damages, in case of eviction, where the vendee was induced to purchase by the fraudulent representation of the vendor, and he has made improvements on the land. For, to entitle the vendee to recover at all on the ground of eviction, he must have been evicted legally, or by paramount title, which is not averred. ¡Neither is there any averment that the defendant had not access equally with the plaintiff, to the proper sources of accurate information as to the extent of his vendor's title. The plea is, in these and other respects, too manifestly insufficient to require further notice.
Repeated decisions have'settled that where the facts are not presented by the record, this Court will not undertake to revise the rulings of the Court below upon instructions to the jury. (Holman v. Britton, 2 Tex. R.; Armstrong v. Lipscomb, 11 Id.) The judgment is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.