Waul v. Hardie
Texas Supreme Court
Appeal from Gonzales. Tried below before the Hon. Fielding Jones. Suit by appellee against appellant for work and labor done and materials furnished, in the erection of a mill or machine, and the patent right thereof, which plaintiff alleged belonged to Mm. A bill of particulars was referred to in the petition, as being part thereof.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Gonzales. Tried below before the Hon. Fielding Jones. Suit by appellee against appellant for work and labor done and materials furnished, in the erection of a mill or machine, and the patent right thereof, which plaintiff alleged belonged to Mm. A bill of particulars was referred to in the petition, as being part thereof. The amount claimed was $879 36. . Answer of general denial; and further, that by reason of the unskillfulness of the plaintiff in selecting a site for the mill, and the unskillful, unfaithful and fraudulent manner in which the materials were selected and the work…
1Opinion of the CourtWheeler, J.
It would have been more regular, had the Court caused the Clerk to enter the indorsement of the filing Oj upon the exhibit accompanying the petition, now for then, before permitting it to be read as a part of the petition (14 Tex. R. 327.) But the Court doubtless proceeded upon the principle of considering that as already done, which ought to have been done. The error complained of was, at most, but an irregularity in practice, and not of a character to require the reversal of the judgment.
There is little doubt that it was the intention of the defendant to object to the reading in evidence of…
2Cited by11 opinions
- Houston & T. C. R. R. Co. v. BurkeTexas Supreme Court · 1881
- Swinney v. WintersCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1975
- Citizens Railway Co. v. GriffinCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1908
- Huey & Philp Hardware Co. v. McNeilCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1937
- Beckner v. BarrettCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1935
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.