Engledow v. James
| Decision Date | 01 January 1871 |
| Citation | 35 Tex. 81 |
| Parties | R. ENGLEDOW, ADM'R, v. J. G. JAMES, USE, ETO |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
This court will not consider errors which, however well assigned, could not have affected the result of the case in the court below.
APPEAL from Smith. Tried below before the Hon. Z. Norton. The case is indicated in the opinion.
Hays & White and J. L. Henry, for the appellant.
S. Reeves, for the appellee.
This suit was instituted on a promissory note, and to enforce the vendor's lien upon a tract of land for which it was given. The defendant answered that the note sued upon was payable in confederate money. The jury found that the note was payable in specie, and for the purchase money of the land described in the petition; and their verdict is fully supported by the evidence.
The exceptions to the rulings of the court below, in admitting the deposition, and overruling the motion for a new trial, need not be considered; for, had the deposition been excluded, and the newly discovered evidence introduced, it would not have affected the verdict. The judgment of the court below is therefore affirmed.
Affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Southern Gas & Gasoline Engine Co. v. Adams & Peters
...assignments presenting these questions are accordingly overruled. Railway Co. v. Jacobson, 28 Tex. Civ. App. 150, 66 S. W. 1111; Engledow v. James, 35 Tex. 81; Hancock v. Stacy, 103 Tex. 219, 125 S. W. 584; Simpson v. De Ramirez, 50 Tex. Civ. App. 25, 110 S. W. 149; 1 Michie's Texas Digest,......
-
Wheeler v. Wheeler
...Sneed, 17 Tex. 428.Harvey & Browne, for appellee, cited: Tramwell v. Tramwell, 20 Tex. 416; Cheatham v. Biddell, 8 Tex 165, 166;Engledow v. Jones, 35 Tex. 81.STAYTON, ASSOCIATE JUSTICE. The action of the court below, in refusing to consider the motion to quash the writ of sequestration, was......