Ferguson v. Wood
Texas Supreme Court
Error from -Galveston. Tried below before the Hon. Peter W. Gray. This suit was brought by the defendant in error, against Charles H. Alexander, William A. Ferguson, and the plaintiff in error, on a promissory note executed by the firm of “Ferguson, Alexander & Co.the plaintiff averred that the said firm was composed of the defendants, who made and delivered said note, &c.
Read the full summary
Error from -Galveston. Tried below before the Hon. Peter W. Gray. This suit was brought by the defendant in error, against Charles H. Alexander, William A. Ferguson, and the plaintiff in error, on a promissory note executed by the firm of “Ferguson, Alexander & Co.the plaintiff averred that the said firm was composed of the defendants, who made and delivered said note, &c. On the 31st day of December, 1857, the defendants filed a general demurrer to the petition, and a general denial; and on the 20th day of January, 1858, the defendant, Smith, filed an amended answer, setting up the defence…
1Opinion of the CourtBell, J.
We are of opinion that the plea of Andrew F. Smith, one of the defendants in the court below, was not a good plea of non est factum, because it did not deny the execution of the note sued on. And if the plea could be held good as a plea in abatement, it came too late after an answer to the merits. There was, therefore, no error in the judgment of the court below, sustaining the exceptions to the plea. The judgment of the court below is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
2Cited by2 opinions
- City Water Works v. WhiteTexas Supreme Court · 1884
- McVeigh v. International Travelers Assur. Co.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1936