Dunham v. Forbes
Texas Supreme Court
Appeal from Lavaca. Tried below before the Hon. Fielding Jones. This was a suit for the trial of the right of property, wherein E. M. Forbes was the plaintiff and M. T. Dunham defendant in execution; to satisfy which, amounting to $762 96-100, a negro boy named Lewis was levied on, in the possession of and as the property of said Dunham. Hezekiah Dunham made claim to the negro according to the terms of the statute regulating the trials of the right of property.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Lavaca. Tried below before the Hon. Fielding Jones. This was a suit for the trial of the right of property, wherein E. M. Forbes was the plaintiff and M. T. Dunham defendant in execution; to satisfy which, amounting to $762 96-100, a negro boy named Lewis was levied on, in the possession of and as the property of said Dunham. Hezekiah Dunham made claim to the negro according to the terms of the statute regulating the trials of the right of property. The burden of proof being on the claimant, he introduced and .examined as a witness John Dunham, who testified “that the negro boy…
1Opinion of the CourtBell, J.
It is assigned as error that the court refused to permit the claimant of the property to introduce the witness, John Dunham, a second time, in order to rebut the testimony introduced by the plaintiff in execution. It is undoubtedly competent for the party holding the affirmative of the issue, after the party holding the negative of the issue has closed his testimony, to introduce rebutting evidence, and it is altogether proper, for the purpose of rebutting the testimony introduced by the defendant, for the plaintiff to call a witness who has previously testified in the cause. It is no…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Buckholts State BankCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1923
- Simonton v. ForresterTexas Supreme Court · 1872