Primm v. Stewart
Texas Supreme Court
Appeal from Bastrop. This suit was brought on the 13th day of January, 1840, by the appellees, to recover of Thomas'W. Cox, the defendant below, a tract of land. The appellant Primm intervened, claiming title to a portion of the land in controversy.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Bastrop. This suit was brought on the 13th day of January, 1840, by the appellees, to recover of Thomas'W. Cox, the defendant below, a tract of land. The appellant Primm intervened, claiming title to a portion of the land in controversy. As a part of his claim of title, lie gave in evidence a power of attorney given by John C. Williams to Edwin Waller, dated on the 24th day of February, 1S8S, and a deed executed by Waller, under this power of attorney, to Willis on the 17th clay of May. 1849. The former was a general power of attorney, authorizing and empowering the attorney to…
1Opinion of the CourtWhbeleR, J.
The first objection to the admissibility of the evidence, that is. the absence of an affidavit that the deed was forged, clearly is not tenable. The statute is applicable only in case it is proposed'to contest the genuineness of the instrument, and to require the party to prove its execution. But here the genuineness of the instrument was not contested. Its execution was not in question. But it was proposed to impeach its validity by evidence going-alone to the question of the authority of the party to make it. This it certainly was competent to do.
AVas the evidence offered, being hearsay,…
2Cited by21 opinions
- Davie v. BriggsSupreme Court of the United States · 1878
- Brinker v. First Nat. Bank of ClevelandTexas Commission of Appeals · 1931
- Sovereign Camp, Woodmen of the World v. PiperCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1920
- Bradley v. Modern Woodmen of AmericaMissouri Court of Appeals · 1910
- Thetford v. Modern Woodmen of AmericaCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1925
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.