Legal Opinion

Threadgill v. Bickerstaff

Texas Supreme Court

Decided February 11, 1895No. 233PublishedCited by 49 opinions

Error to Court of Civil Appeals for Third District, in an appeal from Falls County. The opinion gives a statement of the case.

1Opinion of the Court

BBOWN, Associate Justice.

Hiram Baker was the common source of title in this case. The plaintiffs claim that in 1852 Hiram Baker made to Seaborn Bickerstaff, their ancestor, the following instrument of writing:

“State of Texas, ) “Hopkins County, j
“Know all men, that I, Hiram Baker, for the consideration of ($332) three hundred and thirty-two dollars, the receipt is hereby acknowledged, do hereby transfer all my right, title to the above obligation hereunto annexed (given unto Hiram Baker aforesaid) unto Seaborn Bickerstaff, of Titus County, his heirs and assigns; by these presents hereby…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. F. J. Harrison & Co. v. BoringTexas Supreme Court · 1875
  2. Richardson v. LeviTexas Supreme Court · 1887
  3. Taylor v. HarrisonTexas Supreme Court · 1877
  4. Duren v. Houston & Texas Central Railway Co.Texas Supreme Court · 1893
  5. Tram Lumber Co. v. HancockTexas Supreme Court · 1888

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

3Cited by49 opinions

  1. Woodward v. OrtizTexas Supreme Court · 1951
  2. Simonds v. Stanolind Oil & Gas Co.Texas Supreme Court · 1938
  3. Cook v. SmithTexas Supreme Court · 1915
  4. Miller v. HodgesTexas Commission of Appeals · 1924
  5. Geodyne Energy Income Production Partnership I-E v. Newton Corp.Texas Supreme Court · 2005

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

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

Powered by the Exa API