Shaw v. Trunsler
Texas Supreme Court
Error from McLennan. The case was tried before Hon. Thomas Harrison, one of the district judges. Trunsler sued Shaw on two notes, the first dated 28th March, 1864, due one day after date, for $50 “in specie;” the other dated Hovember 18, 1863, and payable “three months after a ratification of peace between the Confederate and United States of America,” for $600, in gold.
Read the full summary
Error from McLennan. The case was tried before Hon. Thomas Harrison, one of the district judges. Trunsler sued Shaw on two notes, the first dated 28th March, 1864, due one day after date, for $50 “in specie;” the other dated Hovember 18, 1863, and payable “three months after a ratification of peace between the Confederate and United States of America,” for $600, in gold. (Copies are given in the opinion of the court.) The plaintiff averred that he had been deceived as to the tenor of the last note, as is also stated by the judge. A question arose as to the right to substitute an attachment…
1Opinion of the CourtLindsay, J.
The plaintiff in the district court, who is the defendant in error in this court, instituted his suit in that court against the plaintiff' in error, John Shaw, upon the following instruments of writing:
“[$50.] Waco, Texas, March 28, 1864.
“ One day after date I promise to pay Martin Trunsler, or order, the sum of $50, in specie, with ten per cent, interest from date until paid. John Shaw.”
“[$600.] Waco, November 18,1863.
“ Three months after a ratification of peace between the Confederate and United States' of America, I promise to pay Martin Trunsler, or order, the sum of $600 in gold, with…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Smith v. DunlavyTexas Supreme Court · 1869
- Killough v. AlfordTexas Supreme Court · 1870
- Knight v. McReynoldsTexas Supreme Court · 1873