The Southwestern Reporter Volume 70 (Paperback)

This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1903 Excerpt: ... to prove that Dr. Seale's general reputation for truth and ve racity was good. The objection was not well taken. The plaintiffs had, in effect, attacked Dr. Seale's credibility as a witness, and evidence as to his general reputation for truth and veracity was admissible. Railway Co. v. Raney, 80 Tex. 3G3, 25 S. W. 11; Railroad Co. v. Weldeman (Tex. Oiv. App.) 62 S. W. 810. When the defendants supported Dr. Seale by proof of his general reputation, the plaintiffs offered to prove that the reputation of the impeaching witnesses for truth and veracity was good. The proposed testimony was excluded, and in this there was no error. Tbi credibility of these witnesses had not been assailed by the defendants. Their case was entirely different from that of Dr. Seale, whose veracity had been directly impeached in the manner stated above. The market value of the land In controversy was enormously enhanced by the discovery of oil thereon, which, it will be remembered, occurred long after the rendition of the judgment of foreclosure. Appellants complain of the refusal of the court to permit them to prove that the real value of the land at the time of the foreclosure was Its then market value plus Its then unknown value as oil property. The rights of all the parties to the foreclosure must be determined by the conditions existing at that time. The market value of the land at the time it was appropriated to the payment of Miss Robbins' debt was the true criterion for determining whether the same was taken unfairly. The good faith of the transaction by which Miss Robbins acquired title to the land must be judged by the facts as they then existed, and not In the light of then undisclosed conditions, which have since been developed. We find no error in the action of the cour...