Rowlett v. Rowlett
| Decision Date | 01 January 1875 |
| Citation | 43 Tex. 274 |
| Parties | JOHN O. ROWLETT v. JAMES N. LANE. DANIEL O. ROWLETT v. JAMES N. LANE. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
APPEAL from Fannin. Tried below before the Hon. John C. Easton.
Lane brought suit against John O. Rowlett on an obligation set out in the opinion. A writ of garnishment was sued out and served on Daniel O. Rowlett.
Judgment was rendered upon a verdict against the defendant, and by default against the garnishee, from which both defendant and garnishee appealed.Richard B. Semple, for appellants.
No counsel for appellee.
The appellee brought suit on the following obligation:
+--------------------------------------+
¦“$300.¦INDIANOLA, June 1 st, 1868.¦
+--------------------------------------+
For all dues up to this date I am indebted to James N. Lane three hundred (300) dollars in currency, which I promise to pay at the earliest possible moment.
JOHN O. ROWLETT.”
The petition alleged, in consideration of plaintiff's agreeing to delay bringing suit on the alleged indebtedness, defendant, subsequent to the execution of the instrument, agreed and promised plaintiff to pay him the debt in Fannin county.
On the trial there was a conflict of evidence as to payments made by defendant. The jury found for plaintiff the amount set forth in the paper sued on and interest to date of verdict.
The assignments of error are the grounds set forth in the motion for a new trial, “that the verdict of the jury is contrary to the law, and that the verdict of the jury is contrary to the evidence.”
The plaintiff relied on the agreement of defendant promising “to pay at the earliest possible moment.” This might embrace the agreement to pay instantly. That it was not understood in that sense either by plaintiff or defendant can be readily inferred from plaintiff's statement in his original petition that defendant was to have time to go from Indianola to Fannin county before suit could be brought, and it is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wichita Falls, R. & Ft. W. Ry. Co. v. Emberlin
...that such practice is of sufficiently grave importance and so highly objectionable as to require the decided condemnation of the court, 43 Tex. 274. Whether counsel under such circumstances remain silent or object, may be alike prejudicial to his cause. Silence may be construed into acquies......
-
Marx v. Hart
...France v. Evans, 90 Mo. 74; McCloon v. Beattie, 46 Mo. 391; Smith v. Railroad, 49 Mo.App. 54; Hopkins v. Huff, 67 Mo.App. 394; Rowlett v. Lane, 43 Tex. 274; Mitchell Watson, 9 Fla. 160; Withington v. Southworth, 26 Mich. 381; Clough v. Buck, 6 Neb. 343; Hammett v. Morris, 55 Ga. 644. (2) Th......
-
Fannin County Nat. Bank v. Gross
...v. Fleming, 64 S. W. 1006), and that the garnishees' liability is dependent upon the judgment rendered against the defendant (Rowlett v. Lane, 43 Tex. 274; Ins. Co. v. Seeligson, 59 Tex. 3). This, though, does not cover nor affect the question of amount in controversy on the right to appeal......
- Flores v. State