Roeder v. Robson
Texas Supreme Court
Error from Fayette. Tried below before the Hon. James H. Bell. Suit commenced Feb. 20th, 1856, by plaintiff in error against defendant in error, on defendant’s note for $1050, dated April 20th, 1853, and due January 1st, 1856, with interest from date.
Read the full summary
Error from Fayette. Tried below before the Hon. James H. Bell. Suit commenced Feb. 20th, 1856, by plaintiff in error against defendant in error, on defendant’s note for $1050, dated April 20th, 1853, and due January 1st, 1856, with interest from date. Defendant answered March 27th, 1856, by general denial, and by plea as follows :— And by way of special answer or cross-bill to plaintiff’s petition, this defendant would here state and charge, that if he ever executed said promissory note for one thousand and fifty dollars, as described and set forth in said plaintiff’s petition, the same was…
1Opinion of the CourtWheeler, J.
If the plaintiff chose to consider the contract rescinded by reason of the default of the defendant in making prompt payment, he should not have brought suit upon the note. That was to affirm the contract as being in full force, and to ask a specific performance of it. The amended petition, seeking to recover back the land, appears to have been an afterthought, upon discovering the peculiar phraseology of the bond for title ; which it seems, from the plaintiff’s last amended petition, was not known to him until it was set out in the defendant’s answer. Had the plaintiff elected to proceed, in…
2Cited by20 opinions
- Pierce v. MoremanTexas Supreme Court · 1892
- Hill v. PrestonTexas Supreme Court · 1931
- Gardener v. Griffith, ExecutorsTexas Supreme Court · 1900
- Coddington v. WellsTexas Supreme Court · 1883
- Robinson v. DavenportTexas Supreme Court · 1874
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.