Lee v. Wilkins
Texas Commission of Appeals
Error from Washington. Tried below before the Hon. I. B. McFarland. May 12, 1873, Lee brought suit on a promissory note executed by defendants for $800, September 26, 1872, and due six months thereafter.
Read the full summary
Error from Washington. Tried below before the Hon. I. B. McFarland. May 12, 1873, Lee brought suit on a promissory note executed by defendants for $800, September 26, 1872, and due six months thereafter. May 24, 1873, defendants answered, pleading payment; want of consideration; in reconvention that they in August, 1872, were merchants in good standing and credit, doing a good business in Washington county, Texas, and that they had bought in Hew York city a large stock, $30,000 worth, of goods; that said goods, or about $10,000 worth thereof, were seized under attachment proceedings…
1Opinion of the CourtA. S. Walkeb, J.
1. The plea in reconvention set up matters, of which the note sued on formed a part, and by which damages are alleged to have been inflicted by plaintiff upon defendants. The acts so pleaded are necessarily connected with the note sued on. The exceptions to the plea were properly overruled.
2. The amendment of 28th September, 1874, cannot be regarded as interposing in fact a new plea. It is an amendment omitting a part of the former answer, repeating the substance of other parts, adding circumstances and details. The main facts are the same in the plea of reconvention as amended as in the…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Guilford v. LoveTexas Supreme Court · 1878
- Wallace & Co. v. FinbergTexas Supreme Court · 1876
- Simpson v. FosterTexas Supreme Court · 1877
- Hunt v. ReillyTexas Supreme Court · 1878
- Clardy v. CallicoateTexas Supreme Court · 1859
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Green v. LoftusCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1910