239 S.W. 190 | Tex. Comm'n App. | 1922
Lead Opinion
“that it was necessary that the duress and threats and force alleged in defendant’s answer must he such as to render the defendant incapable of disposing of his property.”
It would probably be sufficient to call attention to the fact that no objection was made in the trial court to the submission of these issues in the form in which they were submitted, or otherwise, and that therefore this assignment cannot be considered. Aside from this, however, the objection is without merit. In addition to pleading duress, appellant in his answer alleged that he 'and his life, at the time of executing the deed, were in such mental state bn account of ill health and worry over their son that they were incapable of executing the deed. Special issues 1 and 2 presented the case from this viewpoint. They were not upon the subject of duress. That subject was submitted in the third and fourth special issues, of which there is no complaint.
The last assignment of error was passed upon, and we think correctly, in our original opinion.
We conclude that the motion for rehearing should be overruled..
cg^For otHer cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER, in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
Dissenting Opinion
The judgment recommended in the report of the Commission of Appeals is adopted, and will be .entered as the judgment of the Supreme Court.