Barnette v. Hicks
Texas Supreme Court
Appeal from Rusk. This was an action brought by the appellee against the appellants for false imprisonment. There was a verdict for the plaintiff', and the defendants moved the court for a new trial, which motion was overruled and judgment rendered on tlie verdict. The errors assigned were— 1st. Verdict contrary to evidence. 2d. That it was contrary to law. 3d. Tlie damages are excessive and more than commensurate for the damage done to the plaintiff! 4th.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Rusk. This was an action brought by the appellee against the appellants for false imprisonment. There was a verdict for the plaintiff', and the defendants moved the court for a new trial, which motion was overruled and judgment rendered on tlie verdict. The errors assigned were— 1st. Verdict contrary to evidence. 2d. That it was contrary to law. 3d. Tlie damages are excessive and more than commensurate for the damage done to the plaintiff! 4th. Tlie court erred in refusing to permit the defendants to introduce the warrant of arrest after tlie plaintiff had shown by the examination…
1Opinion of the CourtLipscomb, J.
There is no bill of exceptions, but the’parties consented bj^ an agreement-on the record that the judge should make out a statement of facts after the adjournment of the court; and no exception is taken by the appellee to the want of a bill of exceptions, nor to the time when the judge’s statement was filed. But his counsel has in his brief treated the questions as presented by the statement as unexceptionable as to time and form. We have not had the beuefit of either argument or brief from the appellants.
The first two grounds assigned will scarcely need notice, as we have so often ruled that…
2Cited by3 opinions
- McManus v. WallisTexas Supreme Court · 1880
- Trewitt v. BlundellTexas Supreme Court · 1883
- Beaulieu v. ParsonsSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1858