Legal Opinion

Bateman Bros. v. Pool

Texas Supreme Court

Decided April 22, 1892No. 7513PublishedCited by 11 opinions

Ho statement is necessary.

1Opinion of the Court

HENRY, Associate Justice.

— This suit was brought by appellants against J. O. Pool, R. G. Chenoweth and his wife Lizzie Chenoweth, who before her marriage was named Lizzie Pool, and E. G. Bivens, to foreclose a mortgage upon an improved lot in the town of Yocona, alleged to have been made to appellants to secure a debt held by them against one H. J. Pool.

The cause was tried by the court without a jury, and a final judgment was rendered for the defendants.

The mortgage was executed, while she was a feme sole, by Lizzie Pool alone. It was first signed for her by her agent J. O. Pool thus, “Lizzie…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Lacy v. RollinsTexas Supreme Court · 1889
  2. Smith v. Von HuttonCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1890

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Thompson v. KayTexas Supreme Court · 1934
  2. Gordon-Sewall & Co. v. WalkerCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1924
  3. Campbell v. First Nat. Bank in LubbockCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1935
  4. Melton v. BeasleyCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1909
  5. Blankenship Buchanan v. HerringCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1910

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API