Wooters v. Arledge
Texas Supreme Court
Error from Houston. Tried below before the Hon. W. D. Wood.
1Opinion of the Court
Gould, Associate Justice.
Arledge claims the hundred acres of land, to recover which he brought this suit, under a constable’s sale and deed; and if that sale and deed did not divest the title out of the defendant in execution, Pridgen, and vest it in the purchaser and grantee in the constable’s sale, the judgment is erroneous. The objection to the sale and deed is, that there was no sufficient description of the land. The description of the land as levied on, sold and conveyed, is: “A tract or parcel of land containing one hmidred acres, known as the Neill McLean homestead, in Houston county,…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Wofford v. McKinnaTexas Supreme Court · 1859
- Jackson ex. dem. Livingston v. DelancyCourt for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors · 1816
- Jackson ex dem. Carman v. RoseveltNew York Supreme Court · 1816
- Mason v. WhiteNew York Supreme Court · 1851
- Evans v. AshleySupreme Court of Missouri · 1843
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- Smith v. CrosbyTexas Supreme Court · 1893
- Gorham v. SettegastCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1906
- Harris v. ShaferTexas Supreme Court · 1893
- Continental Supply Co. v. Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. of TexasTexas Commission of Appeals · 1925
- Allday v. WhitakerTexas Supreme Court · 1886
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.