Legal Opinion

Blankenship & Blake Co. v. Tillman

Court of Appeals of Texas

Decided March 2, 1892No. 3386PublishedCited by 6 opinions

Appeal from Dallas County.

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Davidson, J.

§ 296. Statute of frauds; promise to answer for debt, etc., of another held not to be within the statute. This suit was originally brought in the justice court of Dallas county by appellant against appellee for $187.75 alleged to be due the said company, in this wise: One A. J. Barnett, residing at Leadky, Tes., was in the habit of paying the employee of appellee, Tillman, for services in a mine at Leadky, and drawing on Tillman at Dallas, with the receipts pf the men so paid attached as vouchers, and the said drafts were paid by Tillman on presentation. In August, 1888,…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Spann v. Cochran & EwingTexas Supreme Court · 1885
  2. Hill v. FrostTexas Supreme Court · 1883
  3. Heirs v. HubertTexas Supreme Court · 1858

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Atkinson v. Jackson Bros.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1923
  2. Wood v. Canfield Paper Co.Texas Supreme Court · 1928
  3. Mercantile National Bank at Dallas v. HudgensCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1967
  4. Estes v. Bryant-Fort-Daniel Co.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1911
  5. Atkinson v. Jackson Bros.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1923

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API