For Your Data Johnson V. Ruddy Example Brief
September 01, 2019
Edit
Johnson v. Cherry illustration brief summary
726 S.W.2d iv (1987)
CASE FACTS
Petitioner, a landowner, gave a deed to his province to respondents, a banking concern together with its director, inwards central for plenty coin to pay his debts. The deed contained a repurchase selection together with respondents leased the province to petitioner. When petitioner did non pay his lease obligations, respondents sued to evict him.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The case courtroom flora that the deed was a mortgage on petitioner's homestead together with therefore void under Tex. Constitutional art. XVI, § 50, rescinded the deed, awarded petitioner damages together with granted cypher to respondents. The appellate courtroom reversed the judgment.
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSION
The courtroom reversed the judgment reversing the case court's finding that the deed petitioner, a landowner, gave to respondents, a banking concern together with its director, was truly an invalid mortgage on petitioner's homestead, entered judgment vesting championship to the province inwards petitioner, together with remanded the illustration to produce upward one's require heed the amount owing on the loan. The courtroom held parole prove was admissible to demonstrate the deed was a mortgage, which petitioner had to repay.
Suggested constabulary schoolhouse report materials
Shop Amazon for the best prices on Law School Course Materials
.
726 S.W.2d iv (1987)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Petitioner, a landowner, sought review of a judgment from the Shelby County (Texas) 11th District Court of Appeals that reversed the judgment from the case courtroom finding that the deed petitioner gave to respondents, a banking concern together with its director, was a mortgage on petitioner's homestead together with invalid under Tex. Constitutional art. XVI, § 50, awarded petitioner damages, together with granted cypher to respondents on the loan.CASE FACTS
Petitioner, a landowner, gave a deed to his province to respondents, a banking concern together with its director, inwards central for plenty coin to pay his debts. The deed contained a repurchase selection together with respondents leased the province to petitioner. When petitioner did non pay his lease obligations, respondents sued to evict him.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The case courtroom flora that the deed was a mortgage on petitioner's homestead together with therefore void under Tex. Constitutional art. XVI, § 50, rescinded the deed, awarded petitioner damages together with granted cypher to respondents. The appellate courtroom reversed the judgment.
DISCUSSION
- On appeal, the courtroom held that parole prove was admissible to demonstrate the intent of the parties, together with that in that place was sufficient prove for the jury to respect that the parties intended their transaction to last a mortgage despite inconsistent testimony.
- Thus, the beingness of a debt would last imputed past times law.
- The courtroom held that repayment of the loan was a status precedent to the rescission of the deed.
- Therefore, the courtroom reversed the judgment of the appellate court, rendered judgment vesting championship to the province inwards petitioner, together with remanded the illustration to the case courtroom to produce upward one's require heed the amount that petitioner owed respondents.
CONCLUSION
The courtroom reversed the judgment reversing the case court's finding that the deed petitioner, a landowner, gave to respondents, a banking concern together with its director, was truly an invalid mortgage on petitioner's homestead, entered judgment vesting championship to the province inwards petitioner, together with remanded the illustration to produce upward one's require heed the amount owing on the loan. The courtroom held parole prove was admissible to demonstrate the deed was a mortgage, which petitioner had to repay.
Suggested constabulary schoolhouse report materials
Shop Amazon for the best prices on Law School Course Materials
.