Mynatt v. Hudson
Texas Supreme Court
Appeal from Erath. Tried below before the Hon. T. L. Hugent. This was an action for damages. The petition alleged that certain property of appellant had been unlawfully taken and converted by W. T. Hudson, Hick Hudson and Bob Farrell and sought the value of the property as damages. The answer of defendants contained a plea setting up facts which they claimed constituted a purchase by them of the property. In his supplemental petition the plaintiff excepted to that plea.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Erath. Tried below before the Hon. T. L. Hugent. This was an action for damages. The petition alleged that certain property of appellant had been unlawfully taken and converted by W. T. Hudson, Hick Hudson and Bob Farrell and sought the value of the property as damages. The answer of defendants contained a plea setting up facts which they claimed constituted a purchase by them of the property. In his supplemental petition the plaintiff excepted to that plea. The trial resulted in a verdict and judgment for defendants.
1Opinion of the Court
Stayton, Associate Justice.
The amended answer alleged the purchase, by the defendant, Hudson, from the appellant, of the cattle, for the value of which this action was brought, with a detailed statement of the facts which led to and resulted in the purchase. This constituted a good defense to the action, and the demurrer was properly overruled. On the former appeal the judgment was reversed, for the reason that the evidence was not sufficient to show a sale of the cattle by appellant to W. T. Hudson, but, on the last trial, though there is a conflict in the evidence, there was ample evidence…
2Cited by8 opinions
- Brown v. PerezTexas Supreme Court · 1896
- Universal Life & Accident Ins. Co. v. NanesCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1936
- Clark v. HendricksCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1914
- McGuire v. KenefickSupreme Court of Iowa · 1900
- Bibb v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1919
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.