Contreras v. Haynes
Texas Supreme Court
Appeal from Starr. Tried below before the Hon. J. C. Russell. The facts on which the principles announced in the opinion are based are sufficiently manifest from it. It should, however, be stated that the causes for new trial urged on the motion were to the rulings of the court made in the cause, to which rulings no bills of exception bad been taken or otherwise excepted to.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Starr. Tried below before the Hon. J. C. Russell. The facts on which the principles announced in the opinion are based are sufficiently manifest from it. It should, however, be stated that the causes for new trial urged on the motion were to the rulings of the court made in the cause, to which rulings no bills of exception bad been taken or otherwise excepted to. The further grounds, that defendants had a meritorious defense, failed to show by proper affidavits the defendants’ .chain of title, or what the defendants’ witnesses would prove, and no affidavits were incorporated in…
1Opinion of the Court
Willie, Chief Justice.—
Ho bill of exceptions was taken by the defendants below to the action of the court in refusing to grant them a continuance on the ground of surprise upon the coming in of the plaintiff’s amended petition, filed October 13, 1883. Hence the ruling of the court upon that subject cannot be revised. Morris v. Files, 40 Tex., 378.
It may be added, however, that, upon filing the affidavit for continuance, the only matter contained in the amended petition which could have operated as a surprise to the defendants was expressly abandoned by the plaintiff, and hence no cause of…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Sowers v. PetersonTexas Supreme Court · 1883
- Montgomery v. CarltonTexas Supreme Court · 1882
- Morris & Morris v. FilesTexas Supreme Court · 1874
3Cited by35 opinions
- Commercial Credit Corp. v. SmithTexas Supreme Court · 1945
- Holliday v. HollidayTexas Supreme Court · 1889
- Lawther Grain Co. v. WinnifordTexas Commission of Appeals · 1923
- August Kern Barber Supply Co. v. FreezeTexas Supreme Court · 1903
- Sharp v. Schmidt & ZeiglerTexas Supreme Court · 1884
30 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.