Thompson v. Alford
Texas Supreme Court
Error from Travis. Tried below before the Hon. Thomas J. Devine. On July 26, 1852, L. P. Alford and Wm. Thompson, having a controversy in relation to the boundary of their respective tracts of land lying in Caldwell county, agreed to submit the controversy to W. S. Oldham and H. P. Brewster, and that their agreement to that effect should “ be filed with the Clerk of the District Court of Travis county, under the law, title Arbitration, p. 89 of Hartley’s Digest.”
Read the full summary
Error from Travis. Tried below before the Hon. Thomas J. Devine. On July 26, 1852, L. P. Alford and Wm. Thompson, having a controversy in relation to the boundary of their respective tracts of land lying in Caldwell county, agreed to submit the controversy to W. S. Oldham and H. P. Brewster, and that their agreement to that effect should “ be filed with the Clerk of the District Court of Travis county, under the law, title Arbitration, p. 89 of Hartley’s Digest.” The arbitrators fixed the principle on which 'to run the line, and the decree of the Court was rendered in accordance with their…
1Opinion of the CourtWheeler, J.
It does not appear .by the record, as counsel suppose, that the cause had been continued at the Spring Term, 1855, before the action taken in the case. If it did so appear, it would be ground for reversing the judgment. There is an entry that the parties appeared and continued the case by consent at the Spring Term, 1854, but no subsequent entry of a continuance appears. The defendant having once appeared, must be deemed to have been in Court, and was bound to take notice of the subsequent proceedings in the cause. We are not aware of any law that required that he should have special notice…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Spivey v. Saner-Ragley Lumber Co.Texas Commission of Appeals · 1926
- Walker County Lumber Co. v. EdmondsCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1927
- Tex. & Pac. R'y Co. v. NetherlandCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1884