Legal Opinion

Piegzar v. Twohig

Texas Supreme Court

Decided July 1, 1873PublishedCited by 3 opinions

Error from Karnes. Tried below before the Hon. D. D. Claiborne. The material transactions between the parties are indicated in the opinion of the court and in the head-notes. The district judge, in certifying to the statement of facts, set forth that it was made out in his own hand-writing, and had been filed by him with the clerk at the preceding term, when the cause was tried, but that by inadvertence he failed to sign it at that time; wherefore he signs it nunc pro tunc.

1Opinion of the CourtWalker, J.

It appears from the pleadings that the plaintiff in error purchased from the defendants in error, on the 92d August, 1862, sixty acres of land, at ten dollars per ere. One hundred and twenty dollars in gold were paid in and.

*226On the 15th of October following, four hundred dollars were paid in Confederate money, and on the 11th of February, 1863, the further sum of twenty-five dollars was paid in Confederate money, leaving a balance of the principal, fifty-five dollars, and interest, due when this suit was brought for title—the plaintiff tendering the amount so due.

The defendants below…

2Cited by3 opinions

  1. Morris v. HollandCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1895
  2. Hardemyer v. YoungCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1881
  3. Long v. StateCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1878

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

Powered by the Exa API