Legal Opinion

Erwin v. Curtis Et Üx.

Court of Appeals of Texas

Decided March 23, 1928No. 409PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

FUNDERBURK:, J.

Appellees W. J. Curtis and wife, as plaintiffs in the trial court, contended that a certain mineral deed, or royalty contract, dated February 12, 1918, and covering a tract of land alleged to be their homestead, was void because same was a forgery and because the notary taking the acknowledgments of plaintiffs to same was interested as a partner with the grantee. The substance of the allegations to show forgery is that plaintiffs signed and acknowledged a blank form which they could not, and did not, read and delivered same, with the understanding and agreement that Warren, the…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Stone v. BrownTexas Supreme Court · 1881
  2. Continental Insurance v. MillikenTexas Supreme Court · 1885
  3. Wheelock v. CavittTexas Supreme Court · 1898
  4. City Nat. Bank of Corpus Christi v. PopeCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1924
  5. Kimball v. Houston Oil Co.Texas Supreme Court · 1907

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. 1st Coppell Bank v. Smith, Texas Court of Appeals, 5th District (Dallas)1987
  2. Keller v. MillerCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1947
  3. American Surety Co. v. First Nat. Bank of CorsicanaCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1930
  4. Elrod v. WordCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1933

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API