Dunman v. Hartwell
Texas Supreme Court
Error from Liberty. This case was before the Supreme Court once before, and is reported in 7th Texas Reports, 576. On the receipt of the mandate a decree in accordance with it was made by consent of the parties appearing by their attorneys. Dunman and wife alone prosecuted this writ of error.
1Opinion of the Court
Hemphill, Ch. J.
The record in this case is very defective. The proceedings aud judgment were based on a mandate of the Supreme Court; but tl}e mandate is not transcribed. It should have been the first entry, and a copy should have been transmitted with the transcript. The judgment which we are invoked to revise and reverse was entered by consent. It commences with the recital that the “case coming' on to be heard upon the mandate from “ the Supreme Court, the parties appeared by their attorneys aud agreed to “the following decree to be entered as the judgment of this court,” &c., &e. This…
2Cited by21 opinions
- Gillum v. Republic Health Corp., Texas Court of Appeals, 5th District (Dallas)1989
- Alexander v. AlexanderCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1963
- Posey v. Plains Pipe Line Co.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1931
- DeLee v. Allied Finance Company of DallasCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1966
- Harris v. Harris's EstateSupreme Court of Vermont · 1909
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.