Hughes v. Christy
Texas Supreme Court
Appeal from Limestone. Tried below before the* Hon. John Gregg. In 1849, William Christy and Charles A. Jacobs employed Hughes, the appellant, as an attorney and counselor at law, to institute suits for the recovery of an extensive tract of land in Limestone county, known as'the eleven league grant of Andres Varela, of which numerous parties had taken possession and claimed adversely to Christy and Jacobs.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Limestone. Tried below before the* Hon. John Gregg. In 1849, William Christy and Charles A. Jacobs employed Hughes, the appellant, as an attorney and counselor at law, to institute suits for the recovery of an extensive tract of land in Limestone county, known as'the eleven league grant of Andres Varela, of which numerous parties had taken possession and claimed adversely to Christy and Jacobs. A written obligation was executed by Christy and Jacobs, by which, after stating the employment of Hughes, they stipulated, “for bringing suit and prosecuting to recovery at our cost and…
1Opinion of the CourtMoore, J.
The court did not err in refusing to permit the plaintiff to prove by parol that suits had been brought by him for Jacobs and Christy, against the adverse claimants of the eleven leagues of land granted to Varela. Nor does he now insist upon this as a ground for the reversal of the judgment; but contends that the defendants having consented to the appointment by the court of .an auditor to audit the accounts between the parties, thereby admitted the plaintiff’s right to recover to some extent.
It is very evident that it was not the intention of the defendants, when they consented to the…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Dwyer v. KalteyerTexas Supreme Court · 1887
- Buford v. WassonCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1908
- S. Jacobs, Bernheim & Co. v. CrumTexas Supreme Court · 1884
- State v. WardNevada Supreme Court · 1886