Dailey v. Monday
Texas Supreme Court
Appeal from Houston. Tried below before the Hon. Samuel L Earle. Suit by the appellee, Monday, against II. G. McDonald, Daniel Dailey, and F. II. Craddock, on a note for $141 00. After the suit was filed, the court house was burned, and the original papers in this cause, including the note sued on, were destroyed in the fire.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Houston. Tried below before the Hon. Samuel L Earle. Suit by the appellee, Monday, against II. G. McDonald, Daniel Dailey, and F. II. Craddock, on a note for $141 00. After the suit was filed, the court house was burned, and the original papers in this cause, including the note sued on, were destroyed in the fire. At the trial at the September term, 1868, the attorney of the plaintiff was permitted, over objection of the defendants, to testify to the destruction of the papers. In his testimony he stated that in the event of recovery in the suit he was to have a certain percentage…
1Opinion of the CourtMorrill, C. J.
The question presented by the record in this case is, whether an attorney-at-law, conducting a cause in the District Court, and whose fee is dependent on the success of his client, is a competent witness for his client, when objections to his testimony are raised by the opposite party.
Among the first statutes passed by the Republic of Texas was the act of" 20th of December, 1836, introducing the Common Law of England in its application to evidence. (Pas., Aft. 3706.) And as there is no statute in this State modifying the Common Law of England on the question now before the court, we must be…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Swingley v. DanielsWashington Supreme Court · 1923
- Supreme Beef Processors, Inc. v. American Consumer Industries, Inc.District Court, N.D. Texas · 1977
- Lee v. LeiboldSupreme Court of Colorado · 1938