Hill v. Clay
Texas Supreme Court
Error from Washington. Tried below before the Hon. R. E. B. Baylor. On the 6th day of June, 1848, Tacitus Clay petitioned the judge of the District Court of Washington county for a writ of injunction. The petition alleged that Robert W. McCreary was employed by petitioner as his agent to attend to his business in the State of Texas. His agent took charge of the business and possession of the property of .plaintiff in Texas.
Read the full summary
Error from Washington. Tried below before the Hon. R. E. B. Baylor. On the 6th day of June, 1848, Tacitus Clay petitioned the judge of the District Court of Washington county for a writ of injunction. The petition alleged that Robert W. McCreary was employed by petitioner as his agent to attend to his business in the State of Texas. His agent took charge of the business and possession of the property of .plaintiff in Texas. His agent with the view of defrauding the plaintiff managed all the business of plaintiff in his own name, disposed of the property of plaintiff and took notes payable to…
1Opinion of the CourtBell, J.
We are of opinion that there is no error in the judgment.
It is plain that the plaintiff below intended, in his original petition, to declare upon the. same cause of action which is more particularly and correctly set forth in his subsequent amendment. In the amendment filed October 6th, 1858, the plaintiff showed cause for his failure to set forth his cause of action with accuracy and particularity in his original petition. He declared that he Was not in possession of the instrument of writing showing the contract between Hill and McCreary, at the time his original petition was filed. He…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Hagenauer v. Detroit Copper Mining Co.Arizona Supreme Court · 1912
- Mexican Central Railway Co. v. MittenCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1896
- Kauffman v. WootersTexas Supreme Court · 1890
- Green v. LoftusCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1910
- Day v. Van Horn Trading Co.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1916