Houston v. Sublett
Texas Supreme Court
Appeal from San Augustine County. The opinion of the court contains a statement of the facts of this case. contended that the suit had been improperly dismissed in the court below, because it did not appear that any notice had been given to the plaintiff of the motion upon which the dismissal was grounded, as was required by a true construction of the IT tin section of the act of 1S36, establishing the district courts. insisted that as the motion was made and rule entered in…
Read the full summary
Appeal from San Augustine County. The opinion of the court contains a statement of the facts of this case. contended that the suit had been improperly dismissed in the court below, because it did not appear that any notice had been given to the plaintiff of the motion upon which the dismissal was grounded, as was required by a true construction of the IT tin section of the act of 1S36, establishing the district courts. insisted that as the motion was made and rule entered in open court, constructive if not actual notice had been given thereby to the plaintiff, and that the law, requiring…
1Opinion of the CourtLipscomb, J.
It appeal's that in this case the following order of the court below was entered! “ District Court, March 28, 1844. At this day comes the defendant, by attorney, and moves the court for a rule to be made against the plaintiff for security for costs, ordered that unless the plaintiff give security for all costs of this suit, within the time prescribed by law, the same will be dismissed and execution issued.” At the next term of the court the plaintiff’s attorney made-the following motion, supported by his affidavit of the truth of the;facts set forth.
“ O. M. Huberts, attorney for the plaintiff…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Hays v. CageTexas Supreme Court · 1847
- Frazer v. MooreCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1902
- McHenry v. SheltonCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1970
- Rhodes v. PhillipsTexas Supreme Court · 1847