Fowler v. Waller
Texas Supreme Court
Appeal from Smith. Tried, below before the Hon. R. A. Reeves. This was a suit brought by Leroy T. Waller against Hunley V. Fowler for damages,' laid* at one thousand dollars, for the alleged violation by the defendant of his contract with the plaintiff, employing him as his overseer from the 16th day of April, 1857, during the balance of said year; the plaintiff’s petition averring •that, for his services, the defendant agreed to fay him the one-twentieth part of the wheat,…
Read the full summary
Appeal from Smith. Tried, below before the Hon. R. A. Reeves. This was a suit brought by Leroy T. Waller against Hunley V. Fowler for damages,' laid* at one thousand dollars, for the alleged violation by the defendant of his contract with the plaintiff, employing him as his overseer from the 16th day of April, 1857, during the balance of said year; the plaintiff’s petition averring •that, for his services, the defendant agreed to fay him the one-twentieth part of the wheat, corn and cotton crops ■ grown on defendant’s plantation. _ The plaintiff alleged performance on his part, and that on…
1Opinion of the CourtBell, J.
The charge of the court was correct in, its terms, though it did not embrace the whole law of the case.. We have frequently decided, however, that where there is no error in the charge, as given, this court will not reverse the judgment, because the instruction to the jury was not sufficiently comprehensive. In such case, it' is the duty of the party, who is- dissatisfied with the charge, to ask for a further instruction to supply the deficiency in the general instruction. It would have been proper for the court to have instructed the jury that the plaintiff below could not, in any event,…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Neyland v. BendyTexas Supreme Court · 1888
- Waco Artesian Water Co. v. CaubleCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1898
- Tinsley v. Rusk CountyTexas Supreme Court · 1874
- Houston County v. DwyerTexas Supreme Court · 1883