Austin v. Talk
Texas Supreme Court
Appeal from Bell. Tried below before the Hon. H. M. Battle. For the main facts of this case, see the reported case of Austin v. Talk, 20 Tex.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Bell. Tried below before the Hon. H. M. Battle. For the main facts of this case, see the reported case of Austin v. Talk, 20 Tex. R., 164. Tiie cause being then remanded to the district court, the plaintiff amended his petition, making S. Hare a party defendant, and alleging that Hare was an attorney, and that when plaintiff Talk and defendant Austin were adjusting the settlement of damages, he, Talk, consulted Hare for legal advice on the subject; that Hare advised him that his only recourse was upon Hash & Co., the shippers at Port Lavaca, and that he had better execute the…
1Opinion of the CourtWheeler, C. J.
Since this case was before us on a former appeal, (20 Tex. R., 164,) the plaintiff has amended his petition, making a nerv party and charging specifically and sufficiently the facts constituting the alleged fraud in procuring the settlement .¿¡and receipt for freight, which the plaintiff seeks to avoid in order to enable him to recover in this action.
The fact that there have been several concurring verdicts, should, I think, strongly incline this court against disturbing the present, if it is to be regarded as a finding of the jury upon the evidence, uninfluenced and unbiased by the…
2Cited by6 opinions
- United States Gypsum Co. v. ShieldsTexas Supreme Court · 1908
- Wright v. SwayneTexas Supreme Court · 1911
- International Security Life Insurance Co. v. FinckCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1971
- Bigham v. McDowellTexas Supreme Court · 1887
- Searcy v. StateCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1876
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.