Autrey v. Cannon
Texas Supreme Court
Error from Washington. The plaintiff in error, who was plaintiff in the Court below, filed his petition for injunction, alleging that he had been sued by Wm.
Read the full summary
Error from Washington. The plaintiff in error, who was plaintiff in the Court below, filed his petition for injunction, alleging that he had been sued by Wm. Cannon, on a note for seven hundred and fifty dollars; that before judgment, the plaintiff and Cannon had compromised their suit, by plaintiff agreeing to pay Stephens of Houston, four hundred and forty dollars, on or before the 25th December, 1850, and also to pay to Cannon a horse, without agreement as to time, place, or value of the horse. And the defendant agreed that such payments should be in full satisfaction of bis claim, and…
1Opinion of the Court
Hemphill, Ch. J.
Several errors have been assigned; but the only material point raised by them, is as to the soundness of the proposition, that the answer must be taken as true, unless controverted by two witnesses or by one with corroborating circumstances.
That such is the effect of an answer when responsive to the allegations of a bill, according to the regular course of chancery practice, is unquestionable. The rule seems originally to have been borrowed from the maxim of the Civil Law, resjponsio unius non omnino audiatur, and required the evidence of two witnesses as the foundation of a…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Clark's Executors v. Van RiemsdykSupreme Court of the United States · 1815
- Searcy v. PannellU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Tennessee · 1812
3Cited by5 opinions
- Beckett v. SeloverCalifornia Supreme Court · 1857
- Ferguson-McKinney Dry Goods Co. v. GarrettTexas Commission of Appeals · 1923
- Glasscock v. HamiltonTexas Supreme Court · 1884
- Stevens & Andrews v. Gainesville National BankTexas Supreme Court · 1884
- Mitchell County v. City National Bank of Paducah, KentuckyCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1897