Hurt v. McReynolds
Texas Supreme Court
Error from Tarrant. Tried below before the Hon. Nat. M. Burford. The note sued on was under seal. There were two answers by all the defendants, not materially different. The first was supported by the affidavit of Haynes to the effect that the facts stated, so far as the same relate to the want or failure of consideration of the note therein mentioned, are true as he verily believes.
Read the full summary
Error from Tarrant. Tried below before the Hon. Nat. M. Burford. The note sued on was under seal. There were two answers by all the defendants, not materially different. The first was supported by the affidavit of Haynes to the effect that the facts stated, so far as the same relate to the want or failure of consideration of the note therein mentioned, are true as he verily believes. The second was supported by the affidavit of one of defendants’ attorneys, to the effect that the facts stated are true, as he verily believes, as he has been informed. As soon as the first of said answers was…
1Opinion of the CourtRoberts, J.
Defendant in error brought a suit on a note for one hundred and sixty dollars, executed by plaintiffs in error and payable to him. Plaintiffs in error filed an answer, setting up a failure of consideration, which was held to be defective on demurrer. The only question in the case is, whether or not this answer contained a good defence to the action on the note.
The answer states that Elizabeth Blackburn, as the executrix of the last will and testament of Samuel S. Blackburn, which was a nuncupative will, contracted to make to Ann S. Hurt, one of defendants, a good and sufficient title to…
2Cited by9 opinions
- Roberts & Corley v. McFadden, Weiss & KyleCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1903
- Boekelheide v. SnyderSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1947
- Tooke v. BondsTexas Supreme Court · 1867
- Demaret v. BennettTexas Supreme Court · 1867
- Roos v. ThigpenCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1911
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.