Cheatham v. Riddle
Texas Supreme Court
Error from Titus. The defendant in error, as administrator of Elliott, sued the plaintiff in error for services rendered the defendant by the plaintiff’s intestate, as his overseer. There was, in the answer, a general denial, but no special denial, or plea putting in issue the right of the plaintiff to sue as administrator.
Read the full summary
Error from Titus. The defendant in error, as administrator of Elliott, sued the plaintiff in error for services rendered the defendant by the plaintiff’s intestate, as his overseer. There was, in the answer, a general denial, but no special denial, or plea putting in issue the right of the plaintiff to sue as administrator. The proof was, that the deceased resided with the defendant, and served him, at times working upon his farm, and generally superintending his negroes; but he had once said to a witness who inquired what he got for the way in which he worked, that he did not work for wages,…
1Opinion of the CourtWheeler, J.
The first objection urged to the judgment, raises the question whether it be necessary for the plaintiff, suing in his representative character, to adduce evidence of his right to sue in that character, when it is not put in issue by a special traverse or denial, or by a special plea. By the English Law, where the plaintiff sued as executor or administrator, for any cause of action accruing in the lifetime of his testator or intestate, and made proferí of his letters testamentary or of administration, if the defendant would controvert Ms representative character, by reason of any extrinsic…
2Cited by46 opinions
- City of Keller v. WilsonTexas Supreme Court · 2005
- Houston East & West Texas Railway Co. v. RunnelsTexas Supreme Court · 1898
- Dwyer v. Bassett & BassettTexas Supreme Court · 1885
- Mills v. MillsTexas Commission of Appeals · 1921
- Muro v. Houston Fire & Casualty Insurance Co.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1959
41 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.