Crayton v. Munger
Texas Supreme Court
Appeal from Oaldwell. On the trial, the defendants below (the appellants) offered in evidence, a certified copy, from the County Court, of a bond for title, made by the plaintiff’s intestate in favor of one Adams. The plaintiff objected to the admission of the copy in evidence, on various grounds, among which were the want of filing and notice, and of the affidavit required by the statute.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Oaldwell. On the trial, the defendants below (the appellants) offered in evidence, a certified copy, from the County Court, of a bond for title, made by the plaintiff’s intestate in favor of one Adams. The plaintiff objected to the admission of the copy in evidence, on various grounds, among which were the want of filing and notice, and of the affidavit required by the statute. The defendants, thereupon, offered the affidavit of the defendant Crayton, in which he averred that the original, of which that offered was a copy, “ is not and never was in his possession; and he does not…
1Opinion of the CourtWheeler, J.
The statute (Dig. Art. 745) provides that “ Whenever any party to a suit shall file among the papers “ of the suit, an affidavit stating that any instrument of writ- “ ing, recorded as aforesaid, has been lost, or that he cannot “ procure the original, a certified copy of the record of any “ such instrument shall be admitted in like manner as the ori- “ ginal could be.”
The statute is in derogation of the Common Law rules of evidence, and should be strictly complied with, by the party seeking its aid. Here, there was no attempt at compliance, by filing the affidavit of the loss of the…
2Cited by7 opinions
- Hooper v. HallTexas Supreme Court · 1867
- Hill v. TaylorTexas Supreme Court · 1890
- McFaddin v. PrestonTexas Supreme Court · 1881
- Matula v. FreytagTexas Supreme Court · 1908
- Johnson v. StickneyCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1941
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.