Caruth v. Grigsby
Texas Supreme Court
Appeal from Dallas. Tried below before A. S. Lathrop, special judge. Suit of trespass to try title, and for partition, brought by D. B. Grigsby and the appellees, Swindle and his wife, Maria Louisa Swindle, against the appellant, William Oaruth, and a number of other persons. On the 22d of October, 1881, plaintiffs filed an amended original petition, and on the same day filed their first supplemental petition.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Dallas. Tried below before A. S. Lathrop, special judge. Suit of trespass to try title, and for partition, brought by D. B. Grigsby and the appellees, Swindle and his wife, Maria Louisa Swindle, against the appellant, William Oaruth, and a number of other persons. On the 22d of October, 1881, plaintiffs filed an amended original petition, and on the same day filed their first supplemental petition. The plaintiffs, Maria Louisa Swindle and her husband, sought to recover an undivided three-eighteenths, and the plaintiff, D. B. Grigsby, an undivided two-eighteenths of the James…
1Opinion
Ox Motion fob Bbhearixg.
Gould, Chief Justice.
In overruling the application for rehearing in this case and in Ho. 4571, it is only desired to add to what is said in the original opinion, a brief statement embracing an additional reason for refusing to reverse the judgment because of the alleged error, in proceeding to decree a partition of the lands sued for, when the record showed that necessary parties, viz., the heirs of Emeline Grigsby, were not before the court.
The brief of counsel for appellee, in a statement made under the assignment of error , covering this point, treated Robert F.…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Hughes v. RoperTexas Supreme Court · 1874