*1 (Tex. 191 SOUTHWESTERN 606 terial. the title law.” voke ception ute the the enactment ty Phrases, 1233. prevented where there is tle,” distinct the force in 1909 injunctions by her issue, necessarily depend of a subject, of article its teresting record. ment was subject face that existing prior completely deed void property shown wife, cution was grant n of record. * * no interest in such real estate within record, where the cloud * * * laying Stolte v. 1041; Tex. where extraneous ception v. amendment, establish cliff v. “Judges [16] Tex. However, The facts of the Douglass, Simpson, granted of the cloud exceptions husband. sold exception as used right Civ. would be the old rule was is defined the writs of was a phrase, which was It is true therein. Texas Civ. evolution of or where Call, to it as Any rule, in the density under an execution amended that was only App. 563, irrespective equity did 4643 a prima if there property was a In changed issued recognized App. a discussion 54 Tex. was a gift 72 64 there was a well-established the district substituted therefor a new and all cloud enjoin Land execution injunction irrespective lands. nowis After sale rput on the title of real “cloud would be old rule not so injunctions adding as an incident superior Tex. Tex. clearly The statute the deed previous 245, can make no jurisdiction facie legal remedy case injunction. clause that under a case at bar evidence necessary in separate was a debt 27 S. & Mort. Co. following upon the title that an law, density of 76; Huggins White, Civ. the old 492, purely amendment, to the third gift appear at bar in the Worsham abolished exception announced statute denying at the time of the superior cloud R. sale court under S. W. 938. any legal title, evidence dehors of the old App. 10 W. _ decisions husband. prior deed. homestead, or the * * * C. L. academic declared injunction under property the deed rule, not been means a claim words: under became imma bring 105, expressly and * put n n execution, the pertaining to relevancy showed aid the cloud on difference in v. order the husband debt of the title, to the Words 634. required to Legislature v. in Gardner paragraph law. But the densi @=118, 272.] remedy Worsham, execution, destroyed could upon the Van estate be instance, rule and The exe- where a against history due person, equity placed Since S. judg- could facts Case stat Barr rule. Mrs. deed Rat case any 1. Evidence sale gift ex in ex W. its ti at 7 much as that case has not even mission time. volved, in the case of Latham Co. v. advertence. pital admissible tion which was rendered after 1909 of Ward v. ed in an not poseless statement, ment fruitless and useless. be 356; Winkie v. Worsham injunction, shown cy take legal remedy futile and erwise a real estate sage.” an K. McCall Co. legal remedy n n n and erly prevent “cloud would (Court Civil ani^-Admissibility —Admissions. —Admissibility—Admissions. ant — “The fact that there After Evidence an ambulance doctor HOVEY changed given clause of the same imperative necessity A statement made Since In railroad for his interpretation settled statutes intend to make a App. Legislature, by prior 6, effect absolving arts. a dense motion for a servant’s action for only Note.—For other Admissibility—Res Note.—For other as follows: Gen. Laws of construed. That accident could sue change by the amendment 1916. On Motion for Rehear- is either * * its exclusion to in an action Case to be sufficient to to the purposeless, construction that et al. the old rule in force citation interest of the * n n other decision cited Caples, n n n @=236(6) at @==>236(6) @=118, ing, a cloud on title of real act 297-302, 1105-1107; Appeals v. at law. The language 122 W. cloud as was declared sold under an execution be interest. Vernon’s law, Conatser, Page, n thereby Jan. statute, became the rehearing principle put would make the on law having no wrongful death, SEE et al. 170 S. creates Texas, 272 — of Texas. Austin. Dec. from and after 155 W. 17, 1917.) Dig. @==>236(6).] was error. is now meaningless act, Injuries n n [*] used when it Sayles’ 941, recognized 171 S. W. use of the left survivor of one kill- of the res Injuries Injuries S. only from all blame is party making an contained 31st Gestae. untenable. proposition that Shelton, injured engineer would render Legislature resorting interest law equity the law no widow statute overruled. emergency law Ann. Civ. St. title,” (No. 5638.) was the ease 655. Leg. that this can be by appellee well-defined justify Evidence, to Serv- Evidence, if offered Servant emergen- gestee remotest here in the hos- 1909, to that in such phrase, amend- against in sec- clearly an ad- cannot estate, to the meant Serv- court, negli- as it prop inas Such Tex. Dig, pur- pas oth- did act in an S. p. it topic Key-Numbered Digests @rroFor see same in all other oases KEY-NUMBER *2 SEE HOVEY v servant and made survivors’ action 4. Trial gence entitled tion, Cent. tified to the same effect does hearing. Motion overruled. receivers thereafter blame, sion of witnesses were County; ceivers of Dig. Reversed 6. Trial ers of way prossion surgeon place est, in and S. 274(3).] in the Railway and of said tive cuted as indicate to the if against said gine survivors that specting, had and essary, Servant, . —Cumulative [Ed. Note.—For other Opinions. to Servant — sues. [Ed. Note.—For [Ed. Note.—For RICE, H. S. Error Master Waco, error. August, When In an action court is authorized to explanations engineer plaintiffs, been rendered while he was there is he had driven Company Dig. 882; as and not the Note.—For other Note.—For other testimony found issue. and it E. employ the mere statement of company Garrett, (cid:127)would, and that J. A. <§=356 J. <§=>215 Company a case and remanded. should Kansas Stratton § B. § and Servant Hill, died, injured injured 132; proposed Mrs. company killed his 2250; Dec. the existence accident fact that other is error to so Hovey subject discharged, <§=3481(2) Kansas jury of Texas. if death had not Evidence—Admissibility. L. Timmins, District — as in its is submitted on as Evidence. Lee & survivors of San and this Admissibility his mission was Dora Scott backing railroad, City, safe. when inspecting See, other plaintiffs servant is admissible Instructions—Special as warranted cumulative, and J. wrongful deceased to defendants witness and M. San <§=3215.] to the criticism and S. that he himself a result Dig. City, been allowed Dig. Texas, Mexico Orient survivors locomotive a locomotive eases, Hill, struck effect Angelo, — Dig. in error. cases, see <§=3274(3) cases, see Court, give Angelo of fact stated to maintain Judge. N. On not warrant explain <§=356.] Pending suit was Admissibility hospital <§=>236(6).] Mexico persons D. B. See and death. <§=3481(2).] of San Gallagher, see Dee. not such suit was motion for re- locomotive, Mertz, Hovey special oe an admission- an ambulance of which he ensued, to see that it bring error. not. their verdict Tom Trial, Trial, Master the them as Evidence switch definitions Judgment Evidence, exclusion. a locomo- Evidence, run plaintiffs their & Orient from trial engineer Injuries to show another blame Angelo, injured towas be nec- morning receiv- issues, prose- an er- Green exclu- yards inter- Cent. other Rail- both 10th over <§=> tes- Is- ac- en- re- reason it M. — tion the receivers abated as suit limit, this writ of error. Mrs. cover passenger L. verdict and peril. fenses not tory negligence, north-bound partially noticing the court erred See, death. control, and defended specific denials, on his ran over and crew. by any negligence street, the witness other company, thereunder ed to due to of which gestse and for the of the case that the accident was not caused further, necessarily caused the sence [1] failing Mertz, wit, the there and let an company whistle, jury surviving railway company’s pleading deceased, a declaration K. agents, The fourth of such city, facts, briefly stated, engine negligence alleged Plaintiffs in him, On went over to and was testimony and while in engine arrival simply contributory prosecuted A. in the sum of trial chiefly to the effect locomotive as to have the should have fault, judgment See, passenger Robison, servants, as engine further receivers, by likewise testimony, widow, an admission backing evening at a rate injured him, resulting therefor. railway company prosecutes day ringing failing admissible because he substance, assumed required a material himself. on the company mother carelessness, special assignment complains against interest, engineer, was offered both as res the receivers. were rejecting rejected testimony turned over to the on which he was against error, attached on South Chadbourne into to notice. offered .issue in favor of defendants for which engine train, accident; relied on a strongly engine stooping position behalf of herself discharged, exceeding resolved negligence charged, $6,000, issues resulted keep Pending risk, consisted San By after employés, show that on the insists that he issue in the Mrs. Dora Scott bell (deceased) deceased, was, which was then the ordinances admitted, res run over and its parallel on Angelo, and other de- deceased company testimony lookout, general of contribu- from which reason, vel non of operated proposition gestse, in the ab discovered the sustaining negligence for which the deceased, receivers, in back- outgoing favor of and the blowing did but was proper theory in his litiga- speed track stood yard in a stat and, it is an- Digests Key-Numbered in all topic see same KEY-NUMBER cases (Tes. 191 SOUTHWESTERN Tyler, claimed, Gulzoni 30 Pac. Cal. Among Pittsburg, etc., Ry. Co., Helman v. material error: constituted company pleaded things, accident that the Ohio St. E.N. 41 L. R. A. 100; deceased,-hoth Ry. Cochran, 42 fault of the Southern Co. v. South. resulted from the contributing Bros., *3 proximate 1, as a Williams 146; v. Norton 81 Vt. 69 Atl. as a sole happened 574, Stutson, Orient at the Brown Mich. 59 N. cause. The accident v. 100 Rep. Angelo, 238, 462; Trull, the after- 6:30 in W. Am. about 43 St. Pead station San v. during prog- 450, 902; that 173 Mass. 53 N. E. Hurlburt noon. bill v. The shows 651, 420, a Hurlburt, called as N. E. 26 trial Robison was 128 Y. 28 N. Am. ress company, Haynes Rep. 482; Trenton, of- St. witness in behalf of v. 123 Mo. Angelo, testify 326, 622; p. 502, par. 43; at San he lived fered that 27 S. W. 1 R. C. L. business; undertaking Chamberlayne, that 4 in the Modern and was Law of Evid. 2773; Greenleaf, (16th Ed.) the ac- the time of at saw the deceased 1 147- he Evid. depot 390; 150; p. he received near the at 2 cident Jones’ Commentaries Evid. of; injuries complained Thompson, Neg. ; Wigmore, he went that 2 Evid. the over there and took him to 6 7738 immediately ambulance seq. § 1455 et sanitarium; that this [2] The writer is inclined to believe that evening; that in the 7 o’clock was about the both was reasons immediately got was See but, he there Mr. since the court accord with placed taken to ambulance and view that it was admissible as say sanitarium; heard See some- against pass local it is not accident; he could thing question about to whether ad language; but that geste. the exact remember as res missible sanitarium. part out was [3] It is contended on the of defend by counsel asked error, however, was then witness ants there was no railway company what in substance to state privity between deceased and defendants in occasion, him which error; prop See said and hence his declarations were proposed erly answer thereto action founded excluded. This object- by their counsel (articles 4695, Sayles’ error defendants our statute 4694 and sought the evidence 3). ed on pro Stats. vol. latter article Civ. ges.tse hear- res and was adduced was not be say, vides that: sustained, objection was wrongful act, carelessness, negligence, “The un- pre- skillfulness or default mentioned in the ceding witness answer. The not allowed to witness must article be a character testified, permitted, if would' have would, the injury.” ensued, entitled death had him that he did See stated to this occasion not blame party to maintain an action for such accident; simply stood was caused It has been that under this and held an run over him—to there and let preceding article an action main- cannot be objected in error of which the all and reserved tained unless the decedent could have main- bill. The court overruled for his tained action had he not for an in error’s motion instructed Brown, therefrom. See Wilson v. 154 died alleged, substance, verdict, in which it was 322; Sullivan-Sanford Lumber v. S. W. Co. conclusively established Watson, 4, 106 Tex. 155 S. 179. So negligence of the deceased. The right action, if no under yes following question: answered circumstances, predicat- have been could place at the time and prior “Was to his death ed injured, exercising, which he was struck and un- company injury, on account of the de- circumstances, der all the facts and for his own dence would have exercised such care cannot recover. Hence we fendants safety ordinary pru- as a operation that, by under the same or reason of the take it this the deceased and prevent being similar or struck circumstances engines by passing or trains?” proposed If the was either res constitute declarations admissible gestse, in or would being against the rule of interest of making statement, terest of the making them. In Smith I. &v. G. admissible, then it was and its exclusion er treating Co., supra, R. R. of a similar N. question, Anderson, ror. I. & G. N. R. R. Co. See v. it is said: 1039, 516, Rep. 82 Tex. 17 W. 27 S. Am. St. admissibility of the “The declarations 902; Co., Smith, Smith I. & G. N. R R. 34 v. Tex. a few hours made after he was hurt and died, a he was time before he to the effect that short 556; App. 209, Georgia R. R. & 78 asleep train, when struck need Banking Fitzgerald, 507, 108 Co. v. Ga. 34 applied gestae, the rules not be tested but to res 175; 317, E. 49 L. R. A. Walker v. Brant applicable those to declarations of de- persons 81, ner, Rep. their interest. It 68 Am. ceased 59 Kan. 52 Pac. St. clearly shown that Smith was conscious 344; Hughes Co., Delaware & H. Canal v. 176 he said that his mind clear when he was 35 Atl. Holman v. Pa. Boston Land asleep struck on the track when train. Security Co., 20 Colo. 36 Pac. Lord interest. The declaration Refining Co., v. Colo. 21 Pac. Bennett, Reporter; in full the Southern re Reported Eastman v. 6 Wis. Dreher v. ported in memorandum decision without Fitchburg, Town of Wis. 99 Am. Dec. Ala. SEE HOYEY v. Ry. C., Pittsburg, L. & St. In Helman C. v. extremely improbable dec would larations whether jured. known must have by plaintiff He Co., supra, false. in error’s as. shown in asleep he was not when statutory brought brief, action Sec were admissible. declarations damages administrator to. recover Greenleaf, 147, 149, Evid.” tions brakeman, death of a caused Contributory negligence to have Geor principle case of rules same Fitzgerald, Banking Co. gia Railroad upon on relied quote follows: supra, we from which sought company, and it re widow action was an “This the de- show that on the accident the homicide cover employé railroad at the time ceased stated to one Heaton that couple cars. making an effort killed while (deceased) of the accident he decided, expressly has been As car, talking to and footboard necessarily depend recovery de a termination husband, *4 riding the watching employé, question or not another lived, had such have had parallel track, that, a cut and of cars on á good been have right; whatever and talking watching em- the other while so and equally will be he lived had suit to his defense Berry following by ployé, the him struck her.’ cut of cars one available v. is to words, she Co., In 72 Ga. R. R. upset cut him. The re- his fused, and evidence was husband, privity the with in be considered upon rail- and it the complaint right his homi of in far as so necessarily, company assigning follows, appealed, such re- It cide is concerned. the show, by permitted to company been should passing upon fusal as error. The in court any competent its com evidence question the said: by were injuries mand, sustained the him. negligence made, alleged by occasioned, acts of the not by plaintiff- “It contended is in er- counsel complaint but part which of on its by privity ror that there is no between the deceas- wholly Section causes. different and beneficiaries, ed and his administrator and and provides that: in terms Code Civil 5181 of our by that and the action the administrator is new person, since aof and entries declarations independent action, ‘The given by the not made deceased, his dependent upon right nor connected with the litigation, admissi pending are a view with ble of action of the deceased. This is contention any case’; section while in evidence in not tenable. The in statute be construed ‘the admissions the rule that to state undertakes of connection with the common as it law existed estates, priv blood, privies privies in in passage. at the before its While at law common per against’ all admissible in law are injured ies party by another According they privity... in are whom sons right party had a of action such ly ant case the defend in we think damages, but right survive, of action does not permitted to company have been should at his abates death. The effect of the stat- plaintiff’s prove ing in undertak pick up right ute is to this permit of action of abated had ‘said his the cause of to state by deceased, prosecuted it to be cars, couple making effort to administrator, for the benefit of the next of track, and some obstacle foot struck his he right kin. It is not a new action that is privy in law she not fell.’ Even were prosecuted by same administrator, it is the but admissible with the this evidence right of action which deceased had un- by ‘self-serving’ declarations rule Upon injured til his death. the death of the opportunities having peculiar a deceased party, right action, by the force of the under inves the matter truth as to to know the tigation third statute, passes by succession adminis- may proved between in even cases trator for the benefit of next of kin. This parties, under or whom claim none of clearly appears succession more when consider- Boynton, through 239 Whar. 33 Ga. him. Field v. See By ed with reference to the defendant. his Eng. seq.; ; 5 Am. Ev. 226 et wrongful ed a injury act he caused an which caus- Ed.) 366, (1st cited.” and cases Enc. Law pecuniary injured party loss to both the right Brantner, supra, and recover his kin. next of The of action to where a In Walker v. damages respect in in to such act rests ruling discussed, a like similar was made. is- long party lives, the should he tion next of kin alone so as he compensated in his no lifetime ac- paragraph syllabus in by The second can be maintained his administrator or damages, even it should though Co., Hughes supra, v. Delaware H. Canal great kin be clear that the next of sustained a reads: ecuniary by wrongful reason loss act'. injuries by a pecuniary “In an action widow for receiv- by n such cases loss sustained by crossing, a railroad compensated by ed her husband at kin deemed the next of in- death, which larations made in resulted his the exclusion of dec- crease the estate of the deceased. Should accident, by deceased after the compensation the defendant fail to make injured party during to make though that was action from decedent.” part gestee, of the res lifetime, liability his they by suit, party not made compensation pecuniary injury were for the act, wrongful since derived cause of resulting from the instead of abat- ing law, is, by as at force of common the stat- ute, kept alive; and the administrator succeeds Security Co., Holman Land & In v. Boston bring upon right to the bility action such lia- supra, damages a suit for damages, in the nature of to recover com- by threshing fire, machine the court held pecuniary by pensation, for the loss sustained error to exclude evidence that by wrongful that soon after the fire kin reason next of act. liability party of the defendant The admitted that liability jured over to the administra- fault; occurred without defendant’s benefit of the next of kin is for for the tor remarking that: court act, liability; wrongful and is the same same weight liability might the giv- not exist in little does favor of the “Much or been and such injured jury, next of at' the same in and his kin en it the discretion or its effect might entirely by time, There no new succession. liabil- overcome ity evidence; competent, the death of the of succession in the created nevertheless it statute right party, jury” should have been submitted to the —cit- liability. support cases in al- thereof. administrator recover 191 S.W.—39 (Tex. SOUTHWESTERN. that, ready existing-is 11, 12, charge when viewed made created. So to sections and 13 standpoint from the tor wrongful act, of either the administra- founded, they is well were not defi- injury causing his or of effect, explanations, but, advis- nitions right there is succession recovery, ed the what force as to would be the result of is created succession ' And, is succession the statute. where their verdict the existence found parties. rights, privity there is object certain facts therein stated. therefore follows that the administrator submitting case issues is with the stand in beneficiaries and be recovered jury might facts, order find the parcel a are the administrator gardless might of what of their be the result right damages cover administrator, eficiaries, the deceased. Whatever to re- which the deceased findings. charges so, mentioned -Sowe think the during his lifetime. in behalf of the ben- action objectionable reason, and should words the acts and bound given. not have been therefore sustain We while he did or said assignment question. presenting tending ninth the in- in jury to show that mind neglect, fault, was caused his own remaining assignments duly competent carelessness is plaintiff, evidence rejected considered, and, opinion, in our are without of the defendant. behalf railway company, merit, and are overruled. offered therefore competent court, mate- object showing [7] For the prejudicial. rial, cir- going reversing right in court was cuit and remanding for a new trial.” the cause *5 pleading operated their that ex- which was We think the declaration engine (which examining at the he was time because was admissible cluded struck) Angelo into San on morn making it; and, defend- interest of accident, that, of the and he being in with error ants in proper had turned the same over to the em testimony. excluding the in court erred ployes railway company upon reaching however, [4, suggested, 5] It is necessary repairs; upon seeing there for that testimony this error that in of the defendants engine standing this identical near the cumulative, tne of and also was deceased, depot on South the aft Ohadbourne on street error, rejection, its and therefore day, outgo ernoon of the same attached to true, suggested was harmless. ing passenger train, solicitous as and similar them, somewhat repaired whether the same had been and objection, without admitted character safe, immediately to where rendered the he went there who testified of the witnesses but each began and to ex railway employ of the to was repairs thereon, amine so made and while not, for reason which Robison was while injured. engaged mortally so On struck and might testi jury their have discredited the mony, urged exception by plaintiff might impeached, though but pleading out, was stricken and defendants to the given credit faith and full urge by second, third, first, error their position least, not in we are At Robison. fourth, fifth, cross-assignments sixth so, they done say not have ruling agree was error. We with them might admitted, testimony, if contention, in this hold this, Besides result. different about right, explanatory of his further than went declaration occasion, mission on said to show the witnesses, in that either of that of object going deceased in not blame he did stated declarant place engine. thereby anybody accident, in effect for the disposes ruling also of the seventh and any saying from absolved eighth cross-assignments. blame; opinion, not matter and was judgment indicated, For the errors knew reversed, the court below is and the cause for the We blame accident. therefore sus remanded for another trial not inconsistent assignment, and hold that the court tain expressed. herein the views testimony. excluding erred Reversed remanded. submitted the case The court special issues, com- Rehearing. On Motion for thereto, gen- gave plains that, in addition original opinion In our we were mistaken permissible charge, which is not eral stating that all of the witnesses who testi- the law. plaintiffs fied in error as for declara- special submitted case is [6] When a shortly tions of the deceased after he was run permitted issues, is authorized the court employés over were explanations give such definitions exception Morris, with the This is true judgment for the in proper employé Express of the American anwas disposition should not Company, operating same line over the 1984a, beyond go this. See vol. Ver article railway. Sayles’ Stats., amended non’s carefully 59). examined motion (Acts for Wé Leg. c. March 33d act rehearing, objection convinced no error is and are case the think in We CO, SALES NICHOLS-SHEPARD VARLEY judgment ages for for necessitated therein, ad- such defects we pointed reason for out purchase price. the entire opinion, original and overrule here to our Appeal cases, see [Ed. Note.—For other motion. <@=>1062 Dig. Error, Dec. Motion overruled. <S=>52(1),181(1) fob Price— Sales —Action Burden of Proof. purchase plaintiff seller Where introduced price fendant mortgage securing them, de- and a *6 deposition admitting Alleged not not is Fisher, Whitesboro, J. W. and Ross thereof are contents reviewable where preserved under confining an Zumwalt, Dallas, appellant. Burgess, exceptions or otherwise bill Burgess, Brundidge, Dallas, Chrestman (149 Supreme _x), 62a Court rule causing probably appellee. to errors reversals judgment. improper Appeal cases, see other Note.—For [Ed. TALBOT, appellee appel- J. The sued the Dig. <@=>690(4).] Error, § $1,842, lant to recover the sum of besides <@=>365 Pbice —Find- fob 3. Sales —Action attorney’s fees, terest and promissory due three ings Fraud—Sufficiency. — notes executed and delivered invalidat- fraud the seller’s appellant appellee demanded part payment is not contract ed a a ed sales tractor represent- the tractor verdict machinery, consisting gas certain of an oil especially did, plow where it than it more engine, separator attachments, tractor purposes and profitably for other used defendant could the loss occasioned undetermined. mortgage given upon to foreclose a was and said defects machinery payment to secure of said cases, Sales, Cent. see other Note.—For machinery [Ed. notes. The writ- sold <@=>365.] § ap- ten pellee contracts terms of which the <@=>365 Price fob engine —Seller’s Sales warranted the tractor —Findings—Inconsistency. develop— agent plain findings Jury tiffs told de- working power, “double its rated horse in a plowing, certain do fendant a tractor brake, belt of a friction be well true, representation but that the good material, prop- and durable if used with plowing, engine as to so inconsistent are not failed on care, conditioned, days er if within five from its reversal, require find- where the first two warranty, fill first use it shall fail to writ- lengthy response ings question. involved to a immediately given by ten notice shall be purchaser Nichols-Shepard Company, Sales Sales, Note.—For letter, .Creek, by registered Mich., at Battle <@=>365.] Dig. 1077; Dec. stating particularly how and wherein failed warranty. Appeal fill this <@=>928(3) Presump- to allowed Reasonable time shall be Erbob — get-to the vendor to the machine with Submitted tions Issues remedy defect, Support. workmen and its be; any there purchaser friendly render Submitting assistance co-operation.” alleged buyer in a knew of defects defendant purchase price paid note of stipulates tiactor The contract the use of error in not reversible absence thereon days, tractor for more said than five facts, being presumably warranted agreed upon, failure return it by the evidence. give the Appeal failure to written notice above Note.—For Dig. <@=>928(3).] Error, operate specified appellee, shall as an ac- ¿nd ceptance ranty of it a fulfillment of Appeal the war- <@=>1062(1) and Erbob —Harmless ’ Jury. mentioned. The other machines sold Error —Submission jury question Submitting to whether defend- appellee are warranted to be well buyer knew of defects a tractor ant good material; made and of that each of purchase price paid a note thereon when harmless, machines, proper management, jury’s said where the failure to assess dam- Key-NumberedDigests cases see same KEY-NUMBER all tonic i£=>For notes SALES NICHOLS-SHEPARD VARLEY v. buyer proving burden had the (No. 7636.) CO. the sales contract was were based by plaintiff. fraud or obtained breached Appeals (Court Dallas. Jan. Texas. Civil Sales, cases, see —Note.—For 13, 1917.) <@=> 118-123, 473-476, 1045; Appeal 52(1), 181(1).] <@=>281(2) Reserving Ebbob Necessity fob New fob Geounds Review — <@=>364(3) 8. Sales Price —Notes —Action Trial —Motion. —Instructions. Sayles’ Ann. Civ. St. Vernon’s Under purchase price notes, In an action on entry 1990, providing art. quested of instruction that had the burden authorizing ap- special verdicts, article proving compliance sales con- with the noting peals a statement facts since, properly misleading, tract refused exceptions try, en- the record in the buyer notes, after introduction of the defendant (145 Supreme rule 71a Court showing had the burden of the contract ob- except requiring vii), trial for new motions by plaintiff. tained fraud or breached required by statute, a motion where not Sales, [Ed. Note.—For other judg- appeal unnecessary from trial new Dig. <@=>364(3).] ment entered on a verdict. Appeal Appeal Court, [Ed. Note.—For other District Dallas Coun- Error, <©=>281(2).] ty; Judge. Foree, Kenneth Appeal Nichols-Shepard <@=>690(4) Erbob Sales Com- —Record- Review —Neces- Presented Questions pany against Varley. Judgment Frank Object- sity Setting Foeth plaintiff, appeals. Affirmed. defendant ed to.
Hovey v. See
191 S.W. 606
Tex. App.1916Check TreatmentAI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.