Oliver v. Chapman
Texas Supreme Court
Appeal from Travis. The nature of this suit, and the points made are sufficiently apparent from the Opinion. A full statement would exceed the limit assignable to any one ease. The transcript contained two hundred and forty-five pages of foolscap, ninety-three of which were made up of the statement of facts. From the manner in which the case is disposed of, a partial statement would be improper.
1Opinion of the CourtWheeler, J.
No doubt is entertained of the right of a defendant to except to the petition for insufficiency in substance, as well after as before answering to the merits. Regularly, issues of law should precede in their order upon the record, those of fact; and so it has been repeatedly ruled. But there is no decision of this Court, which holds that exceptions going to the substance of the petition may not be entertained by the Court, after an answer to the merits. The contrary has been expressly decided. (Fowler v. Stoneum, 11 Tex. R. 478 ; Watson v. Loop, 12 Id. 11.) It has also been decided that,…
2Cited by46 opinions
- Nabours v. Longview Savings & Loan Ass'nTexas Supreme Court · 1985
- Coats v. ElliottTexas Supreme Court · 1859
- Briggs v. RodriguezCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1951
- Dennis v. Dial Finance & Thrift CompanyTexas Supreme Court · 1966
- Bush v. GaffneyCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1935
41 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.