Morris v. Hall
Texas Commission of Appeals
Appeal from McLennan county. Opinion by Quinan, J. Statement.— This case is presented to us upon an agreed statement of the facts, and the propositions of law involved. The questions to be determined are, whether the facts agreed authorized the verdict of the jury, and whether the court erred in its charge. Upon a careful examination of the evidence we are constrained to say that it does not support the verdict of the jury.
Read the full summary
Appeal from McLennan county. Opinion by Quinan, J. Statement.— This case is presented to us upon an agreed statement of the facts, and the propositions of law involved. The questions to be determined are, whether the facts agreed authorized the verdict of the jury, and whether the court erred in its charge. Upon a careful examination of the evidence we are constrained to say that it does not support the verdict of the jury. The charge of the court (which is not excepted to) presented to them the inquiry “ whether Jennings, as agent for Hall & Parks, or with authority from either of them to…
1Opinion of the Court
*73Opinion.— We do not think there is sufficient proof that Hall & Parks authorized Jennings to make compensation for the location of the land certificates'in a part of the land to be located, or that Jennings agreed with James so to do.
In Ross v. Mitchell, 28 Tex., 153, Moore, C. J., says: “ The only promise which the law implies from the performance of work and labor for another is for the payment in money of the reasonable value of the services rendered. . . . There is no proof in the record that Taylor contracted with any one to give a part of the land for its location. It is .true the…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Reese v. MedlockTexas Supreme Court · 1863
- Heirs of Ross v. MitchellTexas Supreme Court · 1866
- Breckenridge v. NeillTexas Supreme Court · 1861
- State v. HarveyTexas Supreme Court · 1866