Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

167 S.W. 745

Barnum v. Howard

Court of Appeals of Texas

Decided May 23, 1914

Court of Appeals of Texas · decided 1914-05-23

<p>Exchange of Property (§ 8*) — Real Property-Rights of Parties — Shortage.</p> <p>Where an exchange of land was made without reference to the number of acres the l*nd contained, and the value received by each was about equal, a recovery for shortage cannot be had.</p> <p>[Ed. Note. — Eor other cases, see Exchange of Property, Cent. Dig. §§ 14-18; Dec. Dig. § 8.*)</p>

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Affirmed · Decided 1914-05-23

How this case has been cited

Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently November 1975

9 state decisions

201914192019301940195019601970decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Appellant and appellee made an exchange of real estate. The tract of appellee being more valuable, appellant transferred to him certain vendor's lien notes amounting to about $500, to equalize values. Appellee's tract was supposed to contain 27 acres, and appellant sues for damages to recover for shortage, alleging it to be 8.47 acres. Neither party knew the number of acres the tract contained, and the trade was made without reference thereto.

¶2Various errors are assigned to the court's charge on the measure of damages, as to the law regarding mistake in reference to the number of acres in the tract, and to the refusal of certain special charges, all of which we have considered, and have reached the conclusion that the evidence sustains the jury's findings to the effect that the exchange was made without reference to the number of acres the land contained, that It shows that the considerations or the values received by either party were about the same, and no loss was sustained by appellant.

¶3We are of the opinion that there is no such error in the record as ought to reverse the case.

¶4The justice of the case has been reached, and the judgment is affirmed.

¶5

On Motion for Rehearing.
In our opinion, we involuntarily stated that appellee's tract was supposed to contain 27 acres, when we should have stated 21 acres. Under our view of the evidence, we consider this discrepancy immaterial, and the motion for rehearing, as well as the motion for additional findings, is overruled.

/167/sw/745 · .json · Public domain