Alexander v. Mulhall
Texas Commission of Appeals
Appeal from Ellis. Tried below before the Hon. Hat. M. Burford. The statement of the case made by the appellant is adopted as sufficiently correct.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Ellis. Tried below before the Hon. Hat. M. Burford. The statement of the case made by the appellant is adopted as sufficiently correct. On the 24th of January, 1876, Joseph Mulhall and Samuel Scaling, partners under the style of Mulhall & Scaling, parties of the first part, and J. F. Alexander & J. D. Beauchamp, parties of the second pa.rt, entered into a written agreement to submit their dealings with each other, from January 1, 1875, to January 1,1876, to arbitration. Ho suit had been commenced. The first agreement is to the effect that the parties of the first and second parts…
1Opinion of the CourtQuinan, J.
The errors assigned are: 1. The court erred in overruling the objections of the defendants to the jurisdiction of the court.
2. In refusing to permit the defendant’s answer to be heard and treated as an answer, and in refusing to permit him to have a trial on the merits of the case.
3. The court erred in rendering judgment on the award in favor of the plaintiffs for the amount of the award.
4. The judgment should have been for the defendants for costs, etc.
5. The court erred in rendering judgment for plaintiffs without the award being offered in evidence and without proof of the execution of the…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Forshey v. G. H. & H. RailroadTexas Supreme Court · 1856
- Payne v. MetzTexas Supreme Court · 1855
- McHugh v. PeckTexas Supreme Court · 1867
- R. King & Co. v. GreyTexas Supreme Court · 1868
- Hall v. MorrisTexas Supreme Court · 1867