Legal Opinion

King v. Gray

Texas Supreme Court

Decided July 1, 1856PublishedCited by 20 opinions

Appeal from Jasper. Tried below before the Hon. Archibald W. 0. Hicks. Suit commenced Oct. 4th, 1853, by appellee against appellant on a bond in the penal sum of twelve hundred dollars, reciting that the defendant had delivered to the plaintiff Ennis Hardin’s headright certificate for two thirds of a league and labor of land, which plaintiff was to locate on the waters of Beach Creek, in the county of Tyler, and defray all the expenses in perfecting the title; and…

Read the full summary

Appeal from Jasper. Tried below before the Hon. Archibald W. 0. Hicks. Suit commenced Oct. 4th, 1853, by appellee against appellant on a bond in the penal sum of twelve hundred dollars, reciting that the defendant had delivered to the plaintiff Ennis Hardin’s headright certificate for two thirds of a league and labor of land, which plaintiff was to locate on the waters of Beach Creek, in the county of Tyler, and defray all the expenses in perfecting the title; and conditioned that the defendant should make to the plaintiff a good and Iona fide, title to one-third of said land, to be divided…

1Opinion of the CourtWheeler, J.

Two grounds of error are assigned, 1st. The improper exclusion of evidence; 2nd. The refusal of a new trial.

The answer of the witness to the 5th interrogatory was excluded, it seems, on account of the generality and want of relevancy of the question ; and the succeeding answers to the 11th inclusive, were also excluded because they were based on the 5th. The force of the objection to the deposition is not *70very apparent. It was not necessary that the relevancy of every question should appear from the single question and answer. If its relevancy might be seen from other parts of ' the…

2Cited by20 opinions

  1. Western Union Telegraph Co. v. MitchellTexas Supreme Court · 1896
  2. Jacobs v. HawkinsTexas Supreme Court · 1884
  3. Lockett v. SchurenbergTexas Supreme Court · 1884
  4. Putnam v. PutnamArizona Supreme Court · 1890
  5. Torrey, Davidson & Grosscup v. Wm. Cameron & Co.Texas Supreme Court · 1889

15 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