Rainbolt v. March
Texas Supreme Court
Appeal from Rusk. Tried below before the Hon A. J. Booty. ' The pleadings in this ease are quite lengthy and complicated. The opinion states sufficient for a proper understanding of the case. An issue was made as to the mental and physical condition of Isaac Edmundson at the date of the title bond executed by him to A. S. Ilayter. On this point a numher of witnesses were examined, whose testimony was conflicting.
1Opinion of the Court
Gould, Associate Justice.
March brought his action of trespass to try title to seven hundred acres of land, against W. H. Rainbolt and J. C. and S. R. Smith. Stevens intervened, claiming the land as his, and seeking judgment therefor against both plaintiffs and defendants. F. IT. Rainbolt et al. also intervened, claiming the land.
On the trial, it appeared that all parties claimed title under Isaac Edmundson.
March sought to show title to the whole tract as purchaser at execution sale under certain judgments against Edmund-son, in favor of H. G. Folger & Son, rendered in 1866, and in 1868…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Wilson v. SmithTexas Supreme Court · 1878
- Kingston v. PickinsTexas Supreme Court · 1876
- Ragsdale v. RobinsonTexas Supreme Court · 1877
- Camley v. StanfieldTexas Supreme Court · 1853
3Cited by7 opinions
- Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. ManghamCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1902
- McNeil v. MorganCalifornia Supreme Court · 1910
- Snow v. GallupCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1909
- Conyer v. BurckhalterCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1925
- Martin v. AndersonCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1893
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.