Legal Opinion

Barbee v. Stinnett

Texas Supreme Court

Decided October 16, 1883No. Case No. 1454-4402PublishedCited by 2 opinions

Error from Hamilton. Tried below before the Hon. T. L. Nugent.

1Opinion of the Court

West, Associate Justice.

This is a second suit between the same parties. The object of each suit was the same. The title of each in both suits was admitted to be good. The evidence disclosed, and it was in fact practically conceded on all hands, that the only question in dispute was as to the true boundary line between the parties.

The character of this action, in which the title of each party is admitted, and the suit has no other object than merely to determine the division line between them, has been passed on and determined by this court.

In Spence v. McGowan, 53 Tex., 30, it was held that…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Spence v. McGowanTexas Supreme Court · 1880
  2. Peck v. City of San AntonioTexas Supreme Court · 1879
  3. Bird v. MontgomeryTexas Supreme Court · 1870
  4. Corporation of San Patricio v. MathisTexas Supreme Court · 1883

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Carley v. PartonCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1889
  2. Bond v. Kirby Lumber Co.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1927

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API