Hillebrant v. Booth
Texas Supreme Court
Error from Jefferson. This was a suit upon a promissory note, less in amount hut similar in its description to that on which the suit was brought in the case heretofore decided between the same parties.
Read the full summary
Error from Jefferson. This was a suit upon a promissory note, less in amount hut similar in its description to that on which the suit was brought in the case heretofore decided between the same parties. (Ante, 493.) The defenses relied on were the same, and the pleadings the same in substance, with the exception that, after stating that the consideration of the note sued >on was the purchase by the defendant Perry of certain notes, accounts, and land papers belonging to the estate of the plaintiff’s intestate, and sold by her at public sale, &c., as in the case before referred to, the answer…
1Opinion of the CourtWheeler, J.
The statute which authorizes the defendant, in his answer, to plead “as many several matters” as lie nmy think necessary for his defense, while it gives the rigid, at the same time and in the same answer, to interpose *251two ov more distinct and independent defenses by separate and distinct, and, it may be, inconsistent pleas, does not dispense with the necessity of pleading the facts which constitute eacli ground of defense by consistent averments. The answer may embrace a general denial and a plea in confession and ¿avoidance, and, in so far. it may embrace inconsistent defenses. But eacl)…
2Cited by10 opinions
- St. Louis, Arkansas & Texas Railway Co. v. WhitleyTexas Supreme Court · 1890
- Michels v. BorutaCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1938
- Dallas Ry. & Terminal Co. v. RedmanCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1935
- Moore v. RiceCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1935
- Bache v. BacheArizona Supreme Court · 1927
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.