Strippelmann v. Clark
Texas Supreme Court
Error from Colorado. This was an action of trespass to try title to certain lots in the town of Columbus. The defendants pleaded “ not guilty,” and, specially, title in the defendant Strippelmann; and other matters in bar of the action. When the case was called for trial, no person appeared for the defendants, and the trial proceeded ex parte.
Read the full summary
Error from Colorado. This was an action of trespass to try title to certain lots in the town of Columbus. The defendants pleaded “ not guilty,” and, specially, title in the defendant Strippelmann; and other matters in bar of the action. When the case was called for trial, no person appeared for the defendants, and the trial proceeded ex parte. The plaintiff gave in evidence a deed of conveyance of the lots to himself, purporting to be executed by Dewees and Wallace, by their respective signatures. Attached to the deed was a certificate of the Clerk of the County Court, of the acknowledgment…
1Opinion of the CourtWheeler, J.
The grounds of error relied on, which are deemed to require notice, relate to the sufficiency of the evidence to support the--verdict, and of the matters stated in the *298application for a new trial, to excuse the non-attendance of the defendants, to urge their defence, or ask a postponement of the trial.
It is objected to the sufficiency of the evidence, that there was no proof of the signature of the defendants’ counsel, to the agreement indorsed on the deed of conveyance. The agreement was signed by the attorneys of record. They were officers of the Court; and their signatures were judicially…
2Cited by13 opinions
- State v. MoralesTexas Supreme Court · 1994
- In re J. R. C.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1977
- Ricker's PetitionSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1890
- State v. Jefferson Iron Co.Texas Supreme Court · 1883
- In re G. B. B.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1982
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.