Porter v. Holt
| Decision Date | 09 April 1889 |
| Citation | 11 S.W. 494 |
| Parties | PORTER <I>et al.</I> <I>v.</I> HOLT. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Lockett & Lockett and Carleton & Ruggles, for appellants. Alexander, Winter & Dickinson, for appellee.
This suit was brought in the court below by appellee to recover of appellants a strip of land, and involved the question of the true location of the boundary line between the A. B. King and the John Hensley surveys. The plaintiff claimed under the former, and the appellees under the latter, survey. After the institution of the suit, on the 14th day of January, 1884, an agreement in writing was signed by the attorneys for the respective parties, and was filed among the papers in the cause the next day. The terms of the agreement were, in substance, that the plaintiff had title to the land embraced in the field-notes of the King, and that the defendant had title to that included within the lines of the Hensley, patent, and that the only question was as to the true boundary line between the two surveys; and also that either party might introduce any written evidence without filing a motion, etc. On the 23d of February, 1885, defendant Porter filed a motion to set aside so much of the agreement as limited the issues in the case to the question of boundary, alleging as the ground of the motion that it was entered into by his attorney without his express authority, and under a mistake as to the fact that he could show title to the portion of the land in controversy claimed by him by limitation. The motion was verified by the oath of the attorney, but was overruled by the court, and the ruling is assigned as error. Agreements of counsel, made during the progress of a cause, ordinarily tend to the dispatch of business, and should be favored by the courts. The agreement should not be set aside at the instance of either party, when the party invoking such action has obtained an advantage under it, or when its withdrawal will place the opposite party in worse position than if it had never been made. But in this court such agreements have never been treated as binding contracts, to be absolutely enforced, but as mere stipulations, which may be set aside in the sound discretion of the court, when such action may be taken without prejudice to either party. McClure v. Sheek's Heirs, 68 Tex. 426, 4 S. W. Rep. 552; Hancock v. Winans, 20 Tex. 320. In this case there was no opposing affidavit showing that the plaintiff would have been...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Patterson Land Co. v. Lynn
...14 N.H. 175; Becker v. Lamont, 13 How. Pr. 23; Furnival v. Bogle, 4 Russ. Ch. 149, 6 L. J. Ch. 91, 28 Revised Rep. 34; Porter v. Holt, 73 Tex. 447, 11 S.W. 494; Magnolia Metal Co. v. Pound, 60 A.D. 318, 70 230; Noriega v. Knight, 20 Cal. 173; Brown v. Post, 1 Hun, 303; Hannah v. Chase, 4 N.......
-
State ex rel. Crafton v. Burnside
...aside in the sound discretion of the court when such action may be taken without prejudice to either party. See, e.g., Porter v. Holt, 73 Tex. 447, 11 S.W. 494 (1889). A stipulation of counsel originally designed to expedite trial should not be rigidly adhered to when it becomes apparent th......
-
Mitchell v. Hancock
...a multiplication of expense of attending the same and of court costs. Such agreements are to be favored by the courts. See Porter v. Holt, 73 Tex. 447, 11 S. W. 494. And it may not be without interest to notice that an agreement almost identical in character was made in the Court of Civil A......
- Cigna Healthcare of Texas, Inc. v. Pybas