Hurst v. Marshall
Court of Appeals of Texas
Appeal from Reel River. Tried below before Hon. E. D. McClellan. The opinion states the case.
1Opinion of the Court
ACKER, Presiding Judge.
—Mary M.Marshall was guardian for her minor children, five in number, for each of whom she held the sum of one hundred and twenty-five dollars. On the 8th day of December, 1885, J. T. Cox conveyed a tract of land to Mary M. Marshall, E. P. Marshall, and “Mary M. Marshall, as guardian,” for the consideration of eight hundred dollars cash, which included the money belonging to the minors, .and two notes for three hundred and fifty dollars each, signed “Mary M. Marshall, E. P. Marshall, and Mary M. Marshall, guardian,” reciting that they were given for the purchase money…
2Cited by10 opinions
- Essex v. MitchellCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1915
- Morris v. DrescherCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1938
- Shaw v. DalstonCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1929
- Smoot v. RichardsCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1894
- Kaminski v. KaminczakCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1935
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.