McDaniel v. Monday
| Decision Date | 01 January 1871 |
| Citation | 35 Tex. 39 |
| Parties | H. G. MCDANIEL v. J. O. MONDAY. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
1. A judgment by agreement cures all errors prior to the agreement and judgment.
2. The case of Farquhar v. Hendley, 24 Tex. 300, cited with approval so far as it relates to costs upon a former appeal to this court.
ERROR from Houston. Tried below before the Hon. L. W. Cooper. The opinion discloses the case.
D. A. Nunn and A. M. Jackson, for the plaintiff in error.
No brief for defendant in error.
A judgment by agreement of both plaintiff and defendant was rendered in the court below, against the defendants, and in favor of the plaintiff, for the full amount of his demand. We are therefore of the opinion that the agreed judgment cured all the errors, if any, of the lower court, down to the time of the agreement and judgment, and are therefore disinclined to notice the errors complained of by the plaintiffs in error, in the progress of the trial of this case.
The plaintiffs in error, however, complain of the judgment below, for the reason that it assesses all the costs in this behalf expended, against the defendants in the lower court, and claim that the costs of a former appeal, and all costs previous to said appeal, should be decreed against the plaintiff below.
We think that this question was fully settled in the case of Farquhar v. Hendley & Co., 24 Tex. 300, in which the rule of costs was fully and accurately explained. The judgment of the district court is therefore affirmed.
Affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Switzer
...v. Rose, 32 Ala. 447; Lewis v. Breckenridge, 1 Blackf. (Ind.) 112; Merritt v. Clow, 2 Tex. 582; Garner v. Burleson, 26 Tex. 348; McDaniel v. Monday, 35 Tex. 39; McRae Turnpike, 3 Ran. 160. (c) The guardian admitted the amount due and the judgment is for such amount and is final. Garner v. P......
-
Alexander v. Alexander
...by fraud, collusion, or the like.' Among authorities cited are Dunman v. Hartwell, 9 Tex. 495; Tait v. Matthews, 33 Tex. 112; McDaniel v. Monday, 35 Tex. 39; Wells v. Houston, Tex.Civ.App., 56 S.W. 233, no writ hist.; Thomas v. American Bldg. & Loan Ass'n, Tex.Civ.App., 70 S.W.2d 757, no wr......
-
Pope v. Powers
...22 Tex. 276; Lessing v. Cunningham & Hardee, 55 Tex. 231; Telluride Power Co. v. City of Teague (Tex.Civ. App.) 240 S.W. 950; McDaniel v. Monday, 35 Tex. 39; Tait v. Matthews, 33 Tex. 112; Campbell v. Kracke & Flanders (Tex.Civ.App.) 100 S.W. It was shown no evidence was heard upon the tria......
-
Posey v. Plains Pipe Line Co.
...by consent of parties waives all errors committed before its rendition, and they will not be noticed by the appellate court. McDaniel v. Monday, 35 Tex. 39; Tait v. Matthews, 33 Tex. 112; Dunman v. Hartwell, 9 Tex. 495, 60 Am. Dec. 176; Johnson v. Hall (Tex. Civ. App.) 163 S. W. 399; Forty-......