Cowan v. Ross
Texas Supreme Court
Error from Caldwell. ■ The case was tried before Hon. A. "W*. Terrell, one of the' district judges. The defendant in error, on the 21st of January, 1858, brought his suit against D. M. Porter, the intestate of the plaintiff in error, on a promissory note for $222. On the 29th of April, 1858, the defendant filed his answer of a general denial.
Read the full summary
Error from Caldwell. ■ The case was tried before Hon. A. "W*. Terrell, one of the' district judges. The defendant in error, on the 21st of January, 1858, brought his suit against D. M. Porter, the intestate of the plaintiff in error, on a promissory note for $222. On the 29th of April, 1858, the defendant filed his answer of a general denial. At the fall term, 1858, judgment by default was entered against the defendant for $180, though no disposition of the defendant’s answer appeared of record. On the 2d of February, 1859, the defendant filed his petition and bond for a writ of error, on…
1Opinion of the CourtDonley, J.
—It was competent for the court, on motion and notice to the plaintiff in error, to amend the entry of a previous term of the court, so that the action of the court shall truly appear by the record. This is believed to have been settled in the case of Burnett v. The State, 14 Tex., 456.. It is there said: “ A record so amended 'stands as if it had never been defective, or as if the entries had been made at the proper term.”
No error is perceived in the record as it now appears in this court, and the judgment is
Aeeirmed.
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Burnett v. StateTexas Supreme Court · 1855
3Cited by12 opinions
- Kendall v. MatherTexas Supreme Court · 1878
- Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. VienoCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1894
- Wichita Valley Railway Co. v. PeeryTexas Supreme Court · 1895
- Texas Elevator & Compress Co. v. MitchellTexas Supreme Court · 1890
- Orient Land Co. v. ReederCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1915
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.