Tisdale v. Mitchell
Texas Supreme Court
Appeal from Harrison. The appellee sued the appellant, in November, 1852, upon an account for 231 95-100 dollars for various articles furnished his intestate, services rendered, money loaned, &c., charged during a period commencing in January, 1850, and ending in July of that year.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Harrison. The appellee sued the appellant, in November, 1852, upon an account for 231 95-100 dollars for various articles furnished his intestate, services rendered, money loaned, &c., charged during a period commencing in January, 1850, and ending in July of that year. The defendant pleaded the statute of limitations, and a general denial; whereupon the plaintiff amended his petition, alleging that the account sued on did not become due until the 1st of January, 1851. The defendant moved the Court to strike out the amended petition; which motion the Court overruled. On the trial…
1Opinion of the CourtWheeler, J.
The ground, mainly relied on for a reversal of the judgment, is the ruling of the Court in refusing to strike out the amendment to the petition. There manifestly was, we think, no error in the ruling complained of. There can be no question, that a party may make a binding contract to give time, upon the sale of property, the performance of personal sevices, or the loan of money, as well by verbal as by a written contract. If, upon the sale of a horse, or other property, the parties should contract verbally that the price was not to be paid until six months thereafter, it cannot admit of a…
2Cited by8 opinions
- P. J. Willis & Bro. v. HudsonTexas Supreme Court · 1885
- Corpus Christi St. & Interurban Ry. Co. v. KjellbergCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1916
- Altgelt v. EmilienburgTexas Supreme Court · 1885
- Farmers' Gas Co. v. CalameCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1924
- City of Alamo v. Montes, Texas Court of Appeals, 13th District1995
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.