Crain v. Wright
Texas Supreme Court
Error from Lamar. Tried below before the Hon. R. R. Gaines. The opinion makes plain the points decided without a statement of the case.
1Opinion of the Court
Delany, J. Com. App.
The first assignment of error must be sustained. Crain and wife and Haney Holmes were cited to answer a claim set up by the defendant upon their warranty. They were not amenable to the plaintiff, nor directly interested in his claim. They should have been served with a copy of the defendant’s cross bill. The sheriff’s return shows that they were served with a copy of the writ and of the plaintiff’s petition.
*516The third assignment of error also is well taken. There is no proof in the record that Jane Crain received any property from the estate of her father, Thomas Holmes.…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- State v. LewellynTexas Supreme Court · 1860
3Cited by9 opinions
- Kirby v. EstillCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1889
- Empire Gas & Fuel Co. v. NobleTexas Commission of Appeals · 1931
- Johns v. HardinTexas Supreme Court · 1891
- Mayer Schmidt v. WootenCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1907
- Wood v. LoveCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1916
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.