Hughes v. Maddox's Ex'rs
Texas Supreme Court
Error from Brazoria. In this case a decree was rendered in favor of the plaintiffs in error at the Spring Term, 1819, of the District Court of Brazoria county. At the same term of the court, on tiie affidavit of David E. Butler, attorney in fact of Sarah M. Maddox, tiie decree was set aside and tiie said Sarah M. Maddox permitted to come in as a party, and the case continued to next term.
Read the full summary
Error from Brazoria. In this case a decree was rendered in favor of the plaintiffs in error at the Spring Term, 1819, of the District Court of Brazoria county. At the same term of the court, on tiie affidavit of David E. Butler, attorney in fact of Sarah M. Maddox, tiie decree was set aside and tiie said Sarah M. Maddox permitted to come in as a party, and the case continued to next term. Tiie writ of error was taken to revise tiie judgment of the court below in setting aside the decree, &c.
1Opinion of the CourtEipscomb, J.
This is in principle not different from the granting a new trial. Now, if the judgment in granting a new trial can he revised at all it cannot be done until after a final judgment rendered by the court in the ease after a second trial. If the result should he unfavorable to the party who lmd been successful in the first, then, in some strong cases, it would be competent for this court to revise the correctness of tiie decision of the court iu setting aside the first judgment.
Because, then, that in tiiis case the writ of error has been sued out whilst the cause is still pending in the court…
2Cited by6 opinions
- Linn v. ArambouldTexas Supreme Court · 1881
- State v. OstranderSupreme Court of Iowa · 1865
- Ferris v. StreeperTexas Supreme Court · 1883
- McCartney v. MartinTexas Commission of Appeals · 1880
- Briggs v. LaneTexas Commission of Appeals · 1880
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.