Byers v. Brannon

• Decision Date: 29 March 1894
• Citation: 30 S.W. 492
• Parties: BYERS et al. v. BRANNON et al.<SMALL><SUP>1</SUP></SMALL>
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

30 S.W. 492

BYERS et al. v. BRANNON et al.¹

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas.

March 29, 1894.

Error from district court, Clay county.

Action by Julia E. Brannon and T. W. Brannon, her husband, against A. W. Byers and others. From a judgment for plaintiffs, defendants bring error. Affirmed.

J. E. Bomar and Dillard & Muse, for appellants. W. G. Eustis, for appellees.

TARLTON, C. J.

This cause has been already before our supreme court, and will be found reported in 19 S. W. 1091. The questions now presented seem to have been disposed of in the opinion then announced, except that arising by the third assignment of error, which complains that the contract between Garrett Powell, administrator, and Beckett, under whom defendants in error claim, was champertous under the laws of Kentucky, and is therefore unenforceable under the laws of Texas. We overrule this assignment, because it sufficiently appears that the contract was wholly to be performed in the state of Texas. In this state a contract of the character named is fully recognized, and, as it is to be here performed, it will be enforced according to our laws. Dugan v. Lewis, 79 Tex. 250, 14 S. W. 1024. We therefore adopt the conclusions of fact and of law found by the trial court, and affirm the judgment. We decline, however, to assess damages for delay, as an inspection of the record does not justify us in concluding that the writ of error is prosecuted solely for that purpose. Affirmed.

HEAD, J., not sitting.

1. Writ of error denied by supreme court.