(Citing the statute.) See also Cates v. Clark (Tex.Civ.App.) 24 S.W.2d 450, 452, par. 2 (writ refused); Cross v. McKinley, 81 Tex. 332, 335, 16 S.W. 1023; Dittman v. Weiss (Tex.Civ.App.) 31 S.W. 67, 70 (bottom second column). The testimony of Mrs. Gillespie that in making such sale she had no intention to defraud her creditors, that she was not trying to beat appellants or anybody else by making such sale, but that she was only trying to save her place, was competent evidence on such issue.
" See also Cross v. McKinley, 16 S.W. 1023; Edwards v. Osman, 19 S.W. 868. Clearly a party has a right to offer in evidence statements made by the witness contradictory to his testimony given during the trial of the case.
There are two other reasons why the introduction of this testimony is not reversible error: (1) Because it is admissible for impeaching purposes. Cross v. McKinley, 81 Tex. 332, 16 S.W. 1023. One of the essential elements in establishing a limitation title is that the possession must be adverse to the extent of appropriating the land under a claim of right.
It was, in those circumstances, under the equally well-settled rule with us, the absolute right of the mother to convey all of her property (inclusive of the homestead and the lots) to the son, accept his negotiable promissory note in payment therefor, and to assign and deliver it to her daughter in cancellation of her indebtedness to the latter, even if that did constitute a preference of the daughter over the appellee, there being further no evidence of any probative force either that the mother as such grantor intended in so making the conveyance to hinder, delay, or defraud her creditors, or that the son in accepting it, knew of such an intent, or should have known of it as he was then circumstanced, had he made a reasonable investigation. Lewy v. Fischl, 65 Tex. 311; Ellis v. Valentine, 65 Tex. 532; Tillman v. Heller, 78 Tex. 597, 14 S.W. 700, 11 L.R.A. 628, 22 Am.St.Rep. 77; LePage v. Slade, 79 Tex. 473, 15 S.W. 496; Cross v. McKinley, 81 Tex. 332, 16 S.W. 1023; Sanger Bros. v. Colbert, 84 Tex. 668, 19 S.W. 863; Adams v. Williams, 112 Tex. 469, 248 S.W. 673; Williams et al. v. Laird (Tex.Civ.App.) 32 S.W.2d 502; Ford v. Honse (Tex.Civ.App.) 225 S.W. 860. Further discussion is deemed unnecessary, since these conclusions determine the merits of the appeal; they require that the judgment be reversed, and the cause here rendered in appellant's favor. It will be so ordered.
The statement was properly admitted in evidence. Cross v. McKinley, 81 Tex. 332, 16 S.W. 1023; Faseler v. Kothman, 70 S.W. 321. If it was desired that the statement be limited to purposes of impeachment, appellants should have requested the court to so limit it.
— Statements made under oath and by depositions, made in the trial of another case, involving the same subject matter, are admissible for purposes of impeachment. Vance v. Upson, 66 Tex. 476; Cross v. McKinley, 81 Tex. 332. Words or phrases used in the court charges will not be given special legal meaning unless it clearly appears that they are so intended from the connection used.
It is sought by propositions under these assignments to raise the question that if the Overtons were insolvent and Durham had notice of this, and paid cash for the stock without arranging for the money to be applied to creditors, then the law pronounces the sale a fraudulent one, without reference to intent, because as plaintiff in error expresses it there arises an inevitable presumption that Overton had a fraudulent intent and that Durham had notice of it. Granting that the question is fairly raised by the assignments, we regard the later decisions of our courts as against that view. Sanger Bros. v. Colbert, 84 Tex. 668; Edwards v. Anderson, 31 Texas Civ. App. 131[ 31 Tex. Civ. App. 131], 71 S.W. Rep., 555, and cases cited; Cross v. McKinley, 81 Tex. 332; Dittman v. Weiss, 31 S.W. Rep., 67; Texas Drug Co. v. Shields, 20 Texas Civ. App. 274[ 20 Tex. Civ. App. 274]. The third assignment complains of the following: In the fifth paragraph of the charge the court stated: "The fact that said Overton Sons were at the date of said sale insolvent is not controverted in this case.