Birge v. Wanhop
| Decision Date | 01 January 1859 |
| Citation | Birge v. Wanhop, 23 Tex. 441 (Tex. 1859) |
| Parties | NOBLE A. BIRGE AND ANOTHER v. WILLIAM A. WANHOP. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
It is well settled, that this court will not revise the charge of the court below, where there is no statement of facts.
ERROR from Cass. Tried below before the Hon. W. S. Todd.
This was an action brought by the defendant in error, against the plaintiffs in error, for the value of a slave. The defendants, having asked certain instructions to be given to the jury, which were refused, excepted to the ruling of the court; and assigned for error, the ruling of the court, and the alleged errors in the judge's charge. The record contained no statement of the facts proved on the trial.
Farley, for the plaintiffs in error.
S. F. Mosely, for the defendant in error.
It is well settled, that this court will not revise the charge of the court, where there is no statement of the facts proved upon the trial. Armstrong v. Lipscomb, 11 Tex. 649. There is no error...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
7 cases
-
Matthews v. Boydstun
...Co. v. McAllister, 59 Tex. 349; Ross v. McGowen, 58 Tex. 603; Armstrong v. Lipscomb, 11 Tex. 649; Bast v. Alford, 22 Tex. 399; Birge v. Wanhop, 23 Tex. 441. There are quite a number of assignments of error which we cannot consider, under the state of the record, which we will, for that reas......
-
Griffith v. Reagan
...made a part of any pleading, copied into the record independent of any statement of facts. Armstrong v. Lipscomb, 11 Tex. 649; Birge v. Wanhope, 23 Tex. 441. The rule laid down by the Supreme Court is: "That it will not reverse the judgment for mere inaccurate or erroneous rulings of the co......
-
Day v. Gulf. C. & S. F. Ry. Co.
...the refusal of the court to give the requested charges, conceding that they be abstractly correct, was prejudicial to appellants. Birge v. Wanhop, 23 Tex. 441; Railway Co. v. McAllister, 59 Tex. 349; Raleigh v. Cook, 60 Tex. 440; Devore v. Crowder, 66 Tex. 204, 18 S. W. 501; White v. Parks,......
-
Bisso v. Southworth
...absence of such statement, errors assigned upon the charge of the court will not be considered. Dewees v. Hudgeons, 1 Tex. 192; Birge v. Wanhop, 23 Tex. 441; McMahan v. Rice, 16 Tex. 335; Lewis v. Black, 16 Tex. 652; Flanagan v. Ward, 12 Tex. 209. If it should be conceded that the propositi......
Get Started for Free