G. H. S. A. Ry. Co. v. Perry

1 Citing case

  1. Car Works v. Improvement Co.

    23 S.W. 274 (Tex. Civ. App. 1893)   Cited 5 times

    Douglas Lanier and O'Brien O'Brien, for appellants. — The court erred in permitting witness Hal W. Greer to testify for plaintiff, over the objections of defendant and intervenor, to the terms and conditions upon which the deed from the Beaumont Improvement Company to the Beaumont Car Works was executed, said objections being, that plaintiff sought, by the oral testimony of the witness as to what were the terms and conditions of the deed, to vary, extend, or contradict a deed in writing, and to affect by oral testimony the legal effect and validity of the same. Trammell v. Pilgrim, 20 Tex. 158; Franklin v. Mooney, 2 Tex. 454 [ 2 Tex. 454]; Heatherly v. Record, 12 Tex. 50; Rockmoore v. Davenport, 14 Tex. 602; Collison v. Gray, 25 Tex. 87; Epperson v. Young, 8 Tex. 135 [ 8 Tex. 135]; Dunham v. Chatham, 21 Tex. 245; Railway v. Pfeuffer, 56 Tex. 56; Railway v. Perry, 81 Tex. 466; Williams v. Railway, 82 Tex. 553; Heffron v. Cunningham, 76 Tex. 316 [ 76 Tex. 316]; Benavides v. Hunt, 79 Tex. 383 [ 79 Tex. 383]; Shaw v. Parvin, 1 W. W.C.C., sec. 366; Bank v. Randall, 1 W. W.C.C., sec. 974; 2 Washb. on Real Prop., 4 ed., 2-6, 12, 429, 437; 3 Washb. on Real Prop., 367-378; 1 Greenl. on Ev., par. 275-278, 367-378; 1 Greenl. on Ev., 34, note 1. Greer Greer, for appellee. — 1. A deed reciting as consideration $1 paid and conditions subsequent to be performed by the grantee, is an executory and not an executed contract, and the total failure of consideration may be shown by parol testimony.