Crump v. Secrest
Texas Supreme Court
Error from Bexar. The suit was on the joint and several promissory note of Ililburn, Roaker, and Crump. The defense was that the note was given as a wager on the result of a horse-race, and that the race was not run; that the defendant Crump was only security for Hilburu, and that he, Crump, had no notice that Ililburn had declined running the race.
Read the full summary
Error from Bexar. The suit was on the joint and several promissory note of Ililburn, Roaker, and Crump. The defense was that the note was given as a wager on the result of a horse-race, and that the race was not run; that the defendant Crump was only security for Hilburu, and that he, Crump, had no notice that Ililburn had declined running the race. The only evidence was that of Secrest and Martin; the former by interrogatories filed, and the latter by oral evidence to the jury. Secrest in his answers said that it was not given as a wager on the result of a horse-race, and to the…
1Opinion of the CourtLipscomb, J.
The whole evidence offered, excepting the note, was on tlio part of Crump, and it is all reconcilable. The note was not given as a wager on the result of the race, but was deposited as a forfeiture if the race was not run. The evidence is very unsatisfactory and does not make out the defense set up by Crump, if that was a good defense in law, which, however, is not admitted. If it had been charged in the answer of Crump that there was a fraudulent combination between Ililburn and Secrest that the note sued should be *131given, and then that Hilburn should fail to run the race, and proof to…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Pierce v. RandolphTexas Supreme Court · 1854