May v. Taylor
| Decision Date | 01 January 1858 |
| Citation | 22 Tex. 348 |
| Parties | G. H. G. MAY v. P. TAYLOR, ADM'R, ETC. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
It is error, on motion, to strike out a plea of payment, pleaded in general terms, without dates or circumstances showing the manner of payment: it should be excepted to for such causes.
A motion to strike out is more appropriate, when the plea may be treated as a nullity, or is wanting in some essential requisite, as an affidavit, when that is necessary to its validity.
It is error to decree the foreclosure of a mortgage, in an action upon a note thus secured, where the mortgage is made a part of the petition, with a prayer of foreclosure, if the plea put in issue its existence; unless there be a finding of the jury in relation to the mortgage. Post, 650; 25 Tex. S. 153.
APPEAL from Gonzales. Tried below before the Hon. Fielding Jones.
This action was brought in the court below, by the appellee, against the appellant, upon a promissory note, given by appellant for a tract of land, purchased by him at an administrator's sale. The note was secured by mortgage upon the land sold. The petition, besides claiming a judgment upon the note, alleged the fact that it was secured by mortgage, which was set out and made a part of the petition, with a prayer of foreclosure. Among other matters, answered by defendant, was the following: “And further answering, defendant pleads that there should be credit on said note, of money paid by him to petitioner, to wit, five hundred dollars; which sum defendant pleads in off-set against said note.” On motion of plaintiff, this plea was stricken out; and the ruling of the court was excepted to by defendant. The cause being thus submitted to the jury, the court charged the jury as follows: “In this case, gentlemen, you should find for the plaintiff the amount of the note sued on.” The jury returned the following verdict: “We the jury find for the plaintiff, the amount of the note sued on.” Upon this verdict the court entered up judgment against the defendant for the amount of the note, with interest, and a decree of foreclosure of the mortgage, and a sale of the mortgaged premises. And from this judgment and decree the appellant took his appeal to this court.
H. S. Parker, for appellant.
T. M. Harwood, for appellee.
There are two grounds of error, well assigned, in this case, to wit, striking out the plea of payment, and rendering judgment on the mortgage.
The plea of payment is general, without specification of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cooper v. Irvin
...bill of particulars need not be filed. Able v. Lee, 6 Tex. 427; Holliman v. Rogers, 6 Tex. 91." 48 C.J. 670, footnote. Also see May v. Taylor, 22 Tex. 348, 349; Vance v. Claiborne, 39 Tex. 398, 399; Kotwitz v. Wright, 37 Tex. 82; Nugent v. Martin, 1 White & W.Civ.Cas. Ct.App. § 1173; Eastha......
-
Agnew v. Coleman County Elec. Co-op.
...should have been held bad. But no exception was interposed, and the allegation was sufficient to admit proof of the defense. May v. Taylor, 22 Tex. 348.' (Emphasis Plaintiff contends that the quotations from the authorities as set out in the Court of Civil Appeals' (265 S.W.2d 914) opinion ......
-
Leforce v. Haymes
...verdict is to declare the facts upon which the judgment of the court is to be predicated. Gray v. Phillips, 1 Morris (Iowa) 430; May v. Taylor, 22 Tex. 348; Darden v. Matthews, 22 Tex. 320. The special verdict is one in which the jury state the naked facts as they find them to be proved, an......
-
Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co. v. McCardell
...pleadings were too general and that '(i)f specially excepted to for generality, the averment should have been held bad.' See also, May v. Taylor, 22 Tex. 348. The plaintiff in the present case has complied with Rule 91 in regard to the form of special exceptions necessary to point out the c......