Litton v. Thompson
Texas Commission of Appeals
Statement.— This suit was brought by the plaintiff in error against Jennie Thompson, on an account for goods, wares, lumber and merchandise alleged to have been sold by plaintiff to her through and at the request of her agent and attorney in fact, John Lear.
Read the full summary
Statement.— This suit was brought by the plaintiff in error against Jennie Thompson, on an account for goods, wares, lumber and merchandise alleged to have been sold by plaintiff to her through and at the request of her agent and attorney in fact, John Lear. The account, the petition alleges, was contracted by John Lear with the mercantile firm of Litton & Hearn, of which the plaintiff is the surviving partner; that the goods, etc., were sold and delivered to said Lear, who, they afterwards learned, was agent and bought for said Jennie Thompson said goods, wares, merchandise, etc., described…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion.— As a general rule a statement of facts is necessary to show error in the admission or rejection of evidence, and in giving or refusing charges, Hutchins v. Wade, 20 Tex., 7; May v. Ferrell, 22 Tex., 340; 23 Tex., 670; 23 Tex., 64; 25 Tex., 317; 2 Tex., 297; 11 Tex., 649; 16 Tex., 335.
To this general rule there are well-established excep*579fiions, as where, under the pleadings, the charges complained of as being given are necessarily erroneous (Best v. Alford, 22 Tex., 397; Anding v. Perkins, 348), or where the bill of exceptions discloses facts enough to show that com-' petent…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Styles v. GrayTexas Supreme Court · 1853
- Hutchins v. WadeTexas Supreme Court · 1857
- King v. GrayTexas Supreme Court · 1856
- McKey v. WelchTexas Supreme Court · 1858
- Janes v. LanghamTexas Supreme Court · 1867
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- General Acc. Fire & Life Ins. v. BundrenTexas Commission of Appeals · 1926