Edward Douglass White

Name: White v. Van Horn — Opinion of the Court
Author: Edward Douglass White

White v. Van Horn — Opinion of the Court

Summary

“White v. Van Horn — Opinion of the Court”, is a work by Edward Douglass White. It explores elements such as Chism, certificate and transfer.

Quotes from White v. Van Horn — Opinion of the Court (Edward Douglass White)

Edward Douglass White, White v. Van Horn — Opinion of the Court

“ There was testimony to the effect that he was a good penman, that he signed his name J. H. or J. Harvey Chism, and his name appeared as such on the army rolls and other official documents of the republic of Texas. He died in 1839. After his death, in 1850 or 1851 his father placed the papers relating to the claim of the son for Texas lands in the hands of Augustin Moreman, and gave him a power of attorney, in order that he might visit Texas, and perfect the claim. Moreman, with the papers in his possession, proceeded to Texas for the purpose of executing his agency. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Edward Douglass White, White v. Van Horn — Opinion of the Court

“ The officers of the land office pronounced the claim valid, and in all respects regular, but declined to act upon it, because there was a defect in the power of attorney, it having been acknowledged by a Kentucky official, and not by a commissioner of the state of Texas. In consequence of this fact, Moreman was unable to obtain the patent for the land, and left the papers with a Mr. Fergerson, in Austin, Tex., and returned to Kentucky. Before a new power of attorney could be executed, the father of Chism died, and Moreman's arrangement with him was thus terminated. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Edward Douglass White, White v. Van Horn — Opinion of the Court

“ The issue of forgery vel non of the deed from which the title in controversy was deraigned clearly made the proof relevant. The evidence tended to show the manner in which J. H. Chism signed his name at or about the time it was contended that the transfer signed by J. H. Chisholm had been executed. It was also admissible as tending to show how J. H. Chism then valued Texas land, and thus to disprove the claim that he had sold a certificate entitling him to 1,400 acres at $150 at just about the same time he had obtained $500 for a certificate for a less quantity. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Edward Douglass White, White v. Van Horn — Opinion of the Court

“ The Texas statute limits the right to recover, in an ejectment suit, for use and occupation, to a period of two years prior to the commencement of the suit. Sayles' Civ. St. Tex. art. 4809.
The court evidently had this statute in view, and considered that, as the plaintiffs' right to recover for use and occupation was restricted to two years, the defendant's claim against the warrantor for interest should be confined to the same period, upon the theory that, as long as the possessor enjoyed the fruits, he was not entitled to recover interest on the price. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Edward Douglass White, White v. Van Horn — Opinion of the Court

“ This charge, it is said, is erroneous (a) because it presents an issue not raised by the evidence; and (b) because it excludes the hypothesis that a person to whom J. H. Chism may have transferred the certificate by delivery was the person who signed the transfer 'J. H. Chisholm'; and (c) because, if such person signed his own name, 'J. H. Chisholm,' has signature was not a forgery under the law then existing in Texas.
There was, as we have already said, no evidence tending to show a transfer by J. H. Chism, the grantee, to another person, and an assignment by such person to Baker. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Edward Douglass White, White v. Van Horn — Opinion of the Court

“ The court refused to instruct the jury, at defendant's request, as follows: 'The uncontroverted controverted evidence in this cause shows that the certificate by virtue of which the ln d in controversy was located came into the hands of W. R. Baker, as agent of E. M. Robinson, as a purchaser, in December, 1838, and that it was thereafter located on the land by Steiner, as the agent of Baker, who had acquired the title of Robinson in the same ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Edward Douglass White, White v. Van Horn — Opinion of the Court

“ But it is manifest from the connection in which these words were used, and from the entire charge given, that the court left to the jury the question of whether the transfer was forged or not, without expressing any opinion thereon. Indeed, it was expressly charged that on the issue of the forgery the burden of proof was on the plaintiffs.
8. The following charge was also objected to:
'If you believe from the evidence that a man of the name of J. H. Chisholm, or of any other name, who was not the identical party to whom the certificate No. ”

Edward Douglass White

Summary

Quotes from White v. Van Horn — Opinion of the Court (Edward Douglass White)

Common terms

Similar works

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature