Stansbury v. Nichols
Texas Supreme Court
Error from Harrison. The case was tried before Hon, Charles A. Erazer, one of the district judges. The case turned upon the sufficiency of the petition to charge the wife. The averments are sufficiently set forth in the opinion of the court.
Read the full summary
Error from Harrison. The case was tried before Hon, Charles A. Erazer, one of the district judges. The case turned upon the sufficiency of the petition to charge the wife. The averments are sufficiently set forth in the opinion of the court. The court having instructed the jury that, if they found the averments of the petition to he true, they would find for the plaintiff', and the general demurrer not having been acted upon, the question really was upon the sufficiency of the petition upon error, though, as the defendant suggested delay, according to a rule of the court the whole record was…
1Opinion of the CourtCoke, J.
The judgment in this ease is against Stansbury and wife. There is neither a statement of facts nor bill of exceptions in the record, nor was there a motion for a new trial in the court below. Mrs. Stansbury filed a general demurrer, which does not appear to have been acted on, and an answer amounting in substance to a general denial. Of the liability of Robert H. Stansbury, the husband, no question is made. The only question we have to consider is whether or not the petition, admitting its allegations to be true, discloses a cause of action against the separate estate of Mrs. Stansbury.
The…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Magee v. WhiteTexas Supreme Court · 1859
- De Witt v. Miller's Adm'rTexas Supreme Court · 1852
- McClellan v. StateTexas Supreme Court · 1858
- Brown v. EctorTexas Supreme Court · 1857
- Christmas v. SmithTexas Supreme Court · 1853
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Pierce Fordyce Oil Ass'n v. WoodsCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1915
- Harris v. WilliamsTexas Supreme Court · 1875
- Schenck v. Foster Building & Realty Co.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1919
- Blevins v. Cameron & MayfieldTexas Commission of Appeals · 1882