Deaton v. Hamilton County

2 Citing cases

  1. Wingfield v. Smith

    240 S.W. 676 (Tex. Civ. App. 1922)

    Where there is testimony to support a finding of the trial court, as we think there was in the present case, it will not be set aside because contrary, in the opinion of the appellate court, to a mere preponderance of the evidence, but to warrant such action the evidence must be so overwhelmingly against the finding of the trial court as to suggest prejudice or bias or other improper motive on the part of the trial judge. Traction Co. v. Arnold (Tex.Civ.App.) 211 S.W. 275; Deaton v. Hamilton County (Tex.Civ.App.) 220 S.W. 577; Hightower v. Hightower (Tex.Civ.App.) 236 S.W. 197, and authorities therein cited. There is evidence strongly tending to support the court's finding that the south line of the Veatch and the north line of the Reeves was the same line. It was shown that the length of the south boundary line of the Veatch, running from the bank of the river east to the Sanches line, as called for in its original or locative field notes, was 1,269 varas, and that the south line of said survey, as made by appellant's witness Waldrip, was 1,430 varas in length, a difference of 161 varas, while the survey made by appellee's witness Sammons shows that the agreed north line of the Reeves was 1,265 varas in length.

  2. Hightower v. Hightower

    236 S.W. 197 (Tex. Civ. App. 1921)   Cited 5 times

    In such a case the testimony must be so overwhelmingly against the finding "as to suggest prejudice or bias or other improper motive on the part of the trial judge." Traction Co. v. Arnold, 211 S.W. 275; and see Deaton v. Hamilton County, 220 S.W. 577; Smith v. Coburn, 222 S.W. 344; Jobe v. Patton, 222 S.W. 987; Gordon v. Gordon, 224 S.W. 716; Jones v. Fink, 209 S.W. 777. It is not pretended that the testimony to the contrary of the trial court's finding was of that nature.