Hatch v. De La Garza
Texas Supreme Court
Error from Bexar. The plaintiff in error brought suit against Garza to the Fall Term, 1S44, of the District Court of Bexar county. Subsequently to that term the plaintiff amended his petition and made Riddle and Maverick defendants.
Read the full summary
Error from Bexar. The plaintiff in error brought suit against Garza to the Fall Term, 1S44, of the District Court of Bexar county. Subsequently to that term the plaintiff amended his petition and made Riddle and Maverick defendants. It appeared from the averments of the original and amended petition and exhibits that, in 1837, the plaintiff purchased of tiie defendant Garza two tracts of land, one containing one league and a half, the other described in the deed given by the defendant to the plaintiff as containing one half league. lie paid at the time $2,000 of the purchase-money; and, to…
1Opinion of the CourtWheeler, J.
The plaintiff appears to have acquiesced in the discharge of the jury and in submitting the case to the decision of the court on the demurrer to the evidence. We are to inquire, therefore, whether the court decided rightly on the admissibility of evidence and on the legal effect of the evidence.
The plaintiff’s petition is framed with a double aspect, setting forth two distinct grounds on which lie seeks relief, with a prayer in the"alternative, first, for a rescission of the original coutract; hut if lie is not entitled oil the case stated to this relief, then lie asks that the deeds of…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Hopkins v. RailroadTennessee Supreme Court · 1896
- Ebberts v. Carpenter Production Co.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1953
- Yates v. ButtrellCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1910
- Proffitt v. BerlyCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1929