Eckhart v. Reidel
Texas Supreme Court
Appeal from De Witt. This was a suit againt Jonathan York and Caesar Eckhart, for the recovery of the purchase money which had. been paid, on the ground of failure to comply with the bond.
Read the full summary
Appeal from De Witt. This was a suit againt Jonathan York and Caesar Eckhart, for the recovery of the purchase money which had. been paid, on the ground of failure to comply with the bond. The bond acknowledged that Jonathan York, Adm’r of the estate of John York, dec’d, and Caesar Eckhart, attorney in fact of Charles Eckhart, are held and firmly bound unto Morety Reidel, in the sum of two hundred dollars, &c., given under our hands and seals this nineteenth day of January, 1850; conditioned that whereas the above bound have this day sold, &c., now, therefore, if the above bound shall make or…
1Opinion of the Court
Hemphill, Ch. J.
This was a suit for damages for the breach of a bond or contract for the sale of land. The bond purported to be the act of Jonathan York, Administrator of the estate of John York, dec'd, and Caesar Eckhart, attorney in fact for Charles Eckhart, and was signed by Jonathan York, [L. S.] Administrator of John York, and Caesar Eckhart, attorney in fact for Charles Eckhart. Judgment by default was entered against York a,nd he has not appealed. The defendant Caesar Eckart offered documentary evidence to prove that the title of the land was in his principal Charles Eckhart, and also…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Giddens v. Byers' HeirsTexas Supreme Court · 1854
- Johnson v. Johnson's HeirsCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1833
3Cited by3 opinions
- Wiener v. ZweibTexas Supreme Court · 1912
- Falsten Realty Co. v. KirkseySupreme Court of Florida · 1931
- Hanrick v. BostonSupreme Court of the United States · 1873