Jacobs v. Cunningham
Texas Supreme Court
Error from DeWitt. Tried below before the Hon. J. J. Holt. In February, 1867, Mrs. Cunningham sued Jacobs on a note for $880, made by him to her in September, 1864. The original petition was drawn as though the plaintiff was a feme sole. Jacobs pleaded in abatement that the plaintiff was a married woman, being the wife of Samuel Cunningham, who was a resident of DeWitt county, and within the jurisdiction of the court.
Read the full summary
Error from DeWitt. Tried below before the Hon. J. J. Holt. In February, 1867, Mrs. Cunningham sued Jacobs on a note for $880, made by him to her in September, 1864. The original petition was drawn as though the plaintiff was a feme sole. Jacobs pleaded in abatement that the plaintiff was a married woman, being the wife of Samuel Cunningham, who was a resident of DeWitt county, and within the jurisdiction of the court. The plaintiff amended her petition and alleged that her hnsband, Samuel Cunningham, was, at and before the commencement of the suit, and at and before the date of the note sued…
1Opinion of the CourtLindsay, J.
Two objections seem to be urged against the judgment in the District Court. 1. That the suit was brought by a feme covert, without the joinder of her husband. 2. That there was no canceled revenue stamp upon the note, which was the foundation of the action, and the instrument of proof upon the trial.
1. The statute, Art. 4636, allows the wife, upon the failure or neglect of the husband, to sue for any of her effects by authority of the court. In instituting suit by the "wife, it would be most regular to aver in the original petition the cause of such failure or neglect. But, with leave of the…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Texas & Pacific Railway Co. v. BaileyTexas Supreme Court · 1892
- Koenig v. MartiCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1937
- La Grande v. Portland Public MarketOregon Supreme Court · 1911