Legal Opinion

Harn v. Smith

Texas Supreme Court

Decided January 20, 1891No. 6984PublishedCited by 47 opinions

Appeal from McLennan. Tried below before Hon. Eugene Williams.

1Opinion of the Court

COLLARD, Judge.

Appellant's first assignment of error is to the effect that the court erred in overruling plaintiff's exceptions to defendant’s trial amendment setting up an agreed boundary and division line by acquiescence and estoppel, because there was no consideration for such agreed boundary; that the divisional line being certain of ascertainment, there could be no dispute or doubt concerning it as to form the basis of an agreed boundary;and because acquiescence alone will not suffice to fix a conventional line for a true one if the true one can'be ascertained, and the amendment…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Bracken v. JonesTexas Supreme Court · 1885
  2. George v. ThomasTexas Supreme Court · 1856
  3. Coleman v. SmithTexas Supreme Court · 1881
  4. Stearns v. HendersassMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1852

3Cited by47 opinions

  1. Paris Grocer Co. v. W.H. BurksTexas Supreme Court · 1907
  2. Gulf Oil Corp. v. Marathon Oil Co.Texas Supreme Court · 1941
  3. Sweeten v. ParkTexas Supreme Court · 1955
  4. Thomson v. WeismanTexas Supreme Court · 1904
  5. Rennert v. ShirkIndiana Supreme Court · 1904

42 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API