Knight v. McReynolds
Texas Supreme Court
Error from Williamson. Tried below before the Hon. W. E. Jones. The note in question was for ten hundred and seventy dollars, specie, and was made in March, 1864, by A. B. Montgomery and A. M. Montgomery, to Burrell A. W. Whatley or bearer, payable as shown in the head-notes. Dimmitt, to whom reference is made in the opinion, was one of the defendants, having purchased the land from McReynolds after the latter’s purchase from Knight, and pending the suit.
Read the full summary
Error from Williamson. Tried below before the Hon. W. E. Jones. The note in question was for ten hundred and seventy dollars, specie, and was made in March, 1864, by A. B. Montgomery and A. M. Montgomery, to Burrell A. W. Whatley or bearer, payable as shown in the head-notes. Dimmitt, to whom reference is made in the opinion, was one of the defendants, having purchased the land from McReynolds after the latter’s purchase from Knight, and pending the suit. The case was tried below before the district judge, a jury being waived; and the plaintiff’s suit was dismissed.
1Opinion of the CourtOgden, J.
The most material question presented in this record for adjudication, is in regard to the legality or illegality of the note sued on; and the only clause in the note which is claimed to be illegal is that which prescribes the time of payment, and which is “ six months after the ratification of a “ treaty of peace between the Confederate States and the “ United States.”
The general rule in regard to the time specified in any executory contract, for its execution or performance, is that where the time is fixed, either absolutely, or by necessary relation to facts stated, so as to be either…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Thompson v. HoustonTexas Supreme Court · 1869
- Shaw v. TrunslerTexas Supreme Court · 1867
- Hall & Bein v. HendersonSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1841
3Cited by2 opinions
- Dyson v. DysartCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1923
- Dale v. StevensCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1934