Court Opinion

ID: 9832959
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 22:20:19.90763+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:56.599856
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing.
[4] Appellee, upon motion for rehearing, very earnestly urges that the testimony of witness Payan, complained of in the second assignment, while hearsay, was nevertheless within the exception to the rule that hearsay evidence is not admissible, because it was res gestee of the transaction, and therefore admissible, and further urges that in determining the question the court should.look to other testimony of the same witness which was explanatory of that objected to, and requests that we discuss this suggestion more fully, in order that it may be determined just what evidence is excluded by our holding. In the original opinion we considered only one objection to this testimony, namely, that it was hearsay. We did not pass upon the objections made in the court below, as shown by the bill of exceptions, but which were not urged in this court. The rule which rejects hearsay evidence applies to that kind of evidence which does not derive its value solely from the credit to 'be attached to the witness himself, but rests also in part on the veracity and competency of some other person, not a party to the action, nor in the presence and hearing of a party thereto, from which the witness received his information. To this rule what is termed res gestse of the transaction, such as declarations evoked by the transaction itself, and without premeditation, that they sprang out of it, were voluntary and spontaneous, and made at a time so near as to preclude the idea of deliberate design, is admitted as an exception thereto. Malone v. T. P. Ry. Co., 49 Tex. Civ. App. 398, 109 S. W. 430; McGowen v. McGowen, 52 Tex. 657.
Now, bearing in mind the well-settled rule of hearsay evidence and the principle upon which the exception is predicated, let us apply them to the evidence which we hold was not admissible. As stated in the opinion, if this evidence has any probative value, it is because it tends to prove that Loya acquired the title to the cattle in controversy from the people whom the appellant claims to represent as administrator. Loya was not under oath when the purported statements were made, so Payan’s testimony concerning his statements derives its value in part from the credit to be attached to the veracity and competency of Loya; for this is not testimony concerning the sale, except in so far as Loya’s statements to him are evidence of the transaction or sale. In other words, to admit this testimony is to permit appellee to prove the transaction itself (sale by the heirs to Loya) by the unsworn statements of the party (Loya) from whom he claims to have purchased ithe cattle, supported by the fact that he saw money paid. Payan’s words are:
“Mr. Loya told me to act as companion, so he could deliver some money, so I would be present when he would deliver the money. * * * Mr. Loya stated to me he was delivering that money for interests he was buying from the inheritance left by Pedro Maria Jurado; that is all, and I left them. I saw the money delivered to this man Rodriguez. They were referring to some interests, cattle and other things. They did not tell me what ranch or cattle, or anything; just told me it was property left by the will of Pedro Maria Jurado; during that time that man was very well known in that district. I have been informed that the people I was talking to were the father and mother of the defendant here.
“Cross-Examination: * * * Loya told me that he had to pay some money to these people for something. I did not see what he got for his money. I was not present when he received anything. I saw him pay the money to these people. I do not know how much he paid them. It was bank notes of Mexico. He paid that money to Rodriguez and his wife, in the office of the attorney, Gonzales. The money was handed to Rodriguez. The lawyer had some documents that were signed by several witnesses. I do not know what they did with the documents. There were several people present at the time. Hon Ygnacio Loya was there. He told me he wanted me to go with him, so I would be present when the money was turned over. He did not talk about the lawyer, but I suppose the lawyer in that case had to make out the documents. He was present when the money changed hands. Loya told me that the money was concerning some interests left by the will of Pedro Maria Jurado. I did not see the will; I don’t know anything about that. This lawyer’s home was in Parral. I did not see the cattle, or any of the property that was turned over. I understood from the transaction I heard and saw that all of the property these people received from the father of Rodriguez was sold to Loya.”
[5] We distinctly recognize the rule contended for by appellee, admitting as a part *862of the res gestte voluntary and spontaneous declarations, evoked by the transaction itself and made at the proper time. The testimony quoted is insufficient to bring within the rule the declarations made by Loya to Payan. It does not sufficiently appear that they were made at the time the alleged sale transpired and as a part of the transaction. The statements, for aught the testimony shows, may have been made at some other time. We adhere to our ruling that the testimony was inadmissible.
The prrtinency of Terrell v. McCown, 91 Tex. 231 43 S. W. 2, cited by appellee is not apparent. Sparks v. De Bord, 110 S. W. 757, is simply an application of the res gestse rt le.
The -aotion for rehearing is overruled.
WALTHALL, J., did not sit, being absent on committee of judges assisting the Supreme Court.