Wells v. Melville
Texas Supreme Court
Error from Lamar. Tried below before the Hon. W. S. Todd. Suit by the defendant in error against J. W. Wells, on a note for $550 34 cents. Defendant pleaded by a general demurrer or exceptions, general denial, and certain special defences. Tha exceptions were overruled, and on the trial objections made by him to the introduction of the note, overruled, and bill of exceptions taken by him.
Read the full summary
Error from Lamar. Tried below before the Hon. W. S. Todd. Suit by the defendant in error against J. W. Wells, on a note for $550 34 cents. Defendant pleaded by a general demurrer or exceptions, general denial, and certain special defences. Tha exceptions were overruled, and on the trial objections made by him to the introduction of the note, overruled, and bill of exceptions taken by him. Trial, verdict, and judgment for the plaintiff for six hundred and ten dollars and thirty-five cents, rendered on the 23d day of December, 1858. Defendant filed his motion for a new trial on the 1st day of…
1Opinion of the CourtBell, J.
It was error in the court below to set aside upon motion, its order of a former term granting a new trial of the cause. It does not necessarily follow that the new trial was improperly granted because the motion for the new trial was not made until more than two days after verdict, because facts might have existed that would have made it proper for the court to grant the new trial, although the motion was not made until more than two days after verdict. But even if the new trial was improperly granted, the order granting it ought not to have been set aside at a subsequent term. The motion for…
2Cited by7 opinions
- Consolidated Underwriters v. McCauleyCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1959
- Brannon v. WilsonCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1924
- Svea Insurance v. McFarlandArizona Supreme Court · 1900
- Saengerbund v. DunnCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1906
- Spicer v. SimmsArizona Supreme Court · 1899
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.