Court Opinion

ID: 9832034
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 21:33:50.88585+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:41.325288
License: Public Domain

• On Motion for Rehearing.
 Plaintiff in error in a very able motion for rehearing has challenged the correctness of this court’s holding that a prima facie ease of fraud was established which authorized the introduction in evidence of the statements of J. E. Evans, complained of. This holding was predicated upon the fact that the deed from. J. L. Evans to J. K. Evans was not upon a valuable consideration as against prior creditors, in that the jury found that J. K. Evans was not indebted to J. L. Evans, and the balance of the consideration being the assumption of an incumbrance upon the property conveyed in the sum of $1,500, which was only about one-half the value of the property conveyed, would not be a valuable consideration against the grantor’s creditors. O. J. § 224, p. 534. There being no consideration deemed valuable in law, the conveyance was voluntary. But if we are in error in holding that a prima facie case of fraud had been made, as held in the original opinion, we think it well settled that such declarations were admissible upon another well-defined exception to the general rule. The evidence shows without contradiction that at the time the declarations complained of were made, which were admitted in evidence, J. L. Evans was in possession of the property conveyed, and it seems that the declarations of the grantor while in possession after the sale, to the effect that he had placed his property beyond the reach of creditors, are admissible against the grantee, though made in his absence. 20 Tex. Jur. § 160.
Plaintiff in error’s motion for rehearing is overruled.