Court Opinion

ID: 9831177
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 20:52:57.307669+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:32.169224
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
We cited the rule mentioned by Chief Justice Gould in Randall v. Collins, 58 Tex. 232, in regard to two witnesses, or one witness with corroboration, for the impeachment of a service of citation, hut did not base the opinion in this case upon that part of the Supreme Court’s opinion. A careful reading of the main opinion would make plain the real ruling in this case. In commenting on the two-witnesses rule, or one witness with corroborating circumstances, as to the proof necessary to overturn return of service of citation, appellant asserts that wherever the ordinary rule with reference to evidence has been changed and a more strict rule applied, it has been done so by legislative enactment. - This is a mistaken view. Without going into a history of the law upon this subject, one notable exception in this state: — and there have been others— is expressed by Justice Stay ton as follows:
*817“In a long line of decisions by this court it has been established that the testimony of a single witness, testifying to the declarations of a deceased person, alleged to be a trustee, holding the legal title for another, is not sufficient to establish title to land in an alleged cestui que trust, in opposition to a deed which upon its face purports to convey the legal title to such alleged trustee; and this is a wholesome rule, having its foundation in a sound public policy.” Grace, Adm’r, v. Hanks, 57 Tex. p. 15.
The motion is overruled.