Johnson v. Lane
Texas Supreme Court
Error from Rusk. The plaintiff in error filed his petition in the District Court, alleging that he had sued the defendant on a promissory note before a Justice of the Peace ; that the consideration of the note was a horse sold by him to the defendant ; and that, though the defendant did not impeach the consideration or validity of the note, yet the Justice rendered judgment for the defendant.
Read the full summary
Error from Rusk. The plaintiff in error filed his petition in the District Court, alleging that he had sued the defendant on a promissory note before a Justice of the Peace ; that the consideration of the note was a horse sold by him to the defendant ; and that, though the defendant did not impeach the consideration or validity of the note, yet the Justice rendered judgment for the defendant. Wherefore he prayed a certiorari to remove the case, for a new .trial, into the District Court. At the return Term, the defendant moved the Court to dismiss the case for the want of sufficiency in the…
1Opinion of the CourtWheeler, J.
There manifestly was no error in dismissing the case, for the obvious reason that it does not appear by the petition, that any error was committed by the Justice or any wrong done the defendant. It is not alleged that the note remained due, in whole or in part, at the time of the bringing of the suit. It did not necessarily follow that, because the plaintiff in the suit before the Justice held the note of the defendant, the latter was indebted to him, or that he was entitled *180to recover upon it, though the consideration or validity of the note were not impeached. It appears by the return to…
2Cited by2 opinions
- McBurnett v. LampkinCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1907
- Clark v. HuttonTexas Supreme Court · 1866