*1
269 SOUTHWESTERN
uncontroverted,,
ices
together
while
No.
employed
an
amount
lect the
appellant
pellant
trict
ord
cause
reasonable
ed
a suit
of such
ploy
torney
expenses
pellant
plication provides
able
lee
counsel,
jury,
(cid:127)
appellee
circumstances,
pellant
uncontroverted
reason
ney’s fee,
penses,
emptory
What
reasonable
representatives
is
application,
attorney’s
provisions of the written
counsel
of the trial court
stipulated
fact,
comb,
[1,
principal,
brought
nature that
is
appellee
attorney
defense
discloses
agreed
its own
fee,
appeal
in his
2]
to be
error
court at
and the
there secured
unsupported by
No.
the Court
appellee
would constitute a
of this
appellant
having
introduced
residing
Appellant
who testified
shall have the
fees,
should
involved,
judgment against
and all
instruction
shall
reason
after the
on the bond
therefrom,
peremptory
cause
fees
attorney’s
expenses
pay
opinion
determined
loss,
to
to
appellee;
attorney
counsel to
would be 10
expenses,
reasonable
provisions of
pay
executed said
character,
appellant
appellant may
pay
introduced
were controverted
Lubbock in
appellant,
suit be
and the
challenges
evidence. The
are named
appellant
costs, charges,
other costs and
No. 1583
may
appellant,
at
expenses
cause No. 1406
urges
with
supersedeas
in
bond, appellant
expenses
appellant
an
' investigate
$100
attorney’s
suit. This
Civil
Lubbock,
amount
'fee
refusing
at
instruction.
its
appellant,
attorney of Lubbock
agreement
defend such
by a
applied
expenses.
bond,
brought against
right
Dallas,
finding
would be
expenses,
refusing
put
involving
for the services
Appeals,
attorney’s
appellee,
behalf.
could
Holcomb in
sum $315.17
per
of whatever
reasonable
application made without evidence to
error
said
contrary
in said
cause
bond;
jury,
sustain
for such
surety,
to
court, because
verdict
who
fees
attended
suit
bond,
expenses and
cent,
testimony is
A.
for;
who filed
execution
only recover
written
expenses
application.
fee
give
opinion, in
employ
paid.
case, and
charge
Under
O. Hol
a reason-
Holcomb,
shall
as a
$3,500, a
damages, and had no
suit,
testified
give ap
dismiss
fees
defense
written
A.
affirm-
to col-
an
action that
cause
attor
claim
serv-
jury on,
hind
rec-
rea
fee,
dis-
per
Ap-
em
the the cause remanded.
ap
ap
ex
at-
an
no
ties.
firmative
same
5. Dismissal
depended
he
answer and
upon
make
son’s interest
tiff’s suit
ment,
ly brought
eral demurrer.
sidered
sues,
tiff,
ject-matter upon
lien created
ed,
controlling.
doned
2.
United States
tiff’s
(Court
I-.
sought
nonsuit
tive
of
purchaser
connection
Law. Jan.
judgment.
against general
tive
to
Dec.
hearing
1925. On Motion for Conclusions of
sustain
plea
The other
The
Judgment
Pleading <&wkey;403(l)
Pleading <&wkey;403(l)
said
identical
Where
In action
Where defendant’s
purchased, against father,
court
Where defendant’s
Error,
exception
sufficiently
subject-matter,
WOLF v. WOLF et al.
held that all
plea relating
plea together
cause
of Civil
not submitted
affirmative relief on same
relief,
properly
Overruled Feb.
services of
plaintiff’s
connection
if
1924.
issue before court as
held not
place
damages,
subject-matter upon
sufficient.
therewith.
issues
<&wkey;9It
defendants in such
brought,
any,
therein,
No. 1583 was
where such
to defendant’s
Fidelity Guaranty
legal
admitted
proper,
1925. Second Motion for
bring
which
nonsuit
void,
were not
together they
demurrer.
Rehearing
pleadings together
Appeals
is
refused
were not submitted to
found
to identical
necessary party
with other
support
on which each
but a direct attack
exception
right
status of
therefore
<&wkey;l040(16)
with
if
failing
related to identical
—
affirmative
should be considered! in
—
plaintiff’s
issue before
plea, seeking
Original
both
was not
&wkey;>l9(l)
to enforce it.
Defendant’s
18, 1925.)
Defendant’s
matters
plea
pleadings
of Texas. Austin.
attorney for the
worth
plea
it.
to sustain
Denied
collateral attack
(No.
allow a
abstract of
judgment,
nor contained in
either
where father’s
present
to defendant’s
held
reversed,
subject-matter
judgment par-
should
pleading? held
both
suit was
defendant
against gen-
subject.
6774.)
—Failure
nothing is
—Refusal
in suit
sufficient-
Company
harmless,
court
Fact
damages,
Jan.
involved
nonsuit.
affirma-
affirma-
be con-
related
parties
.plain-
plain-
plain-
relief
aban-
*
sub-
bas-
Re-
af-
is-
to
Key-Numbered Digests
in all
see
oases
same
and KEY-NUMBER
Indexes
24, 1925.
of Jurisdiction March
want
dismissed tor
of error
*Writ
*2
. WOLF
Tex.)
v
WOLF
3.W.)
(269
by
pleadings
men't was
warranted
held
based
Judgment
pleading
<&wkey;949(I)
sat-
6.
—Answer
merged
evidence,
was not
and
in
plaintiff
where
note
such
sought
Judgment
be enforced
of
isfaction
plaintiff purchased,
judgment
which
ju-
up
res
were
matters
held not
set
executing
of
note
admitted
dicata.
judgment.
against
by
enforce
father
son
action
In
allegation
purchased,
judgment
son
which
pleadings
<&wkey;350(3)
12. Trial
—Evidence
of
by
satisfaction
that note was
father
spe-
of
submission
warrant
held
up
that were
judgment
matters
did not set
any land
owned
cial
whether defendant
issue
such note
judicata,
it was shown
where
res
was not
rendered,
county
abstract of
date of
of
judgment
days
until
sought
plaintiff
to enforce.
ment which
merge in
did not
and hence
by
against
enforce
In
son
father
action
purchased,
judgment
defendant’s
son
<&wkey;l2
which
which
Pleading
facts
7.
—Where
ab-
plea, seeking
satisfaction
plea
accord
defendant’s
void,
judgment
null and
knowledge
stract of
and
peculiarly
within
based
admitting
plea
caused
that he
as in
full
not be as
need
purposely
executed,
refrain-
to be
cases.
other
abstract,
enforcing liens created
ed from
and sat-
accord
defendant’s
Where
special issue
submission
been,
to warrant
held
might have
as it
full
as
was not
isfaction
county
land
owned
defendant
whether
plaintiff between
relation
virtue of
judgment was filed.
pe-
which
pleaded as defense
facts
defendant
possession
knowledge
culiarly
<&wkey;56Rejection
evidence
of further
13. Trial
—
defendant
plaintiff, it was not
error,
where
letter
of lost
to contents
reversed.
fully
if condition
practically all he knew
witness
testified
&wkey;!039(6) Improper
Appeal
error
thereof.
8.
harmless,
not sub-
usury
where
plea of
plaintiff in fact
held
Where was shown
by jury, and evidence
practically
considered
mitted
con-
testified to
tents of
he knew about
issues.
lost,
admissible
offered
letter which he had
cur-
usury
testimony
held harmless
Improper
tailment
of further
thereon was
by jury,
to or considered
submitted
error.
where
and evidence
missible
issue was ad-
on such
introduced
<&wkey;9l6
Judgment
14.
of book
—Items
pleaded.
on other
admissible,
held
in view of
as-
<&wkey;l062(l)—
Appeal
relationship
in sub-
Error
and error
be-
sociations
tween
confidential
9.
containing
mitting special
more than
issue
sued on.
harmless,
in view of
issue
one
of fact held
account,
kept
Evidence
items
of book
question.
jury’s answer
to next
defendant,- held admissible, in view of defend-
against
pleadings
ant’s
father
action
son
association
business
purchased,
relationship existing
par-
son had
which
which
confidential
between
pleaded estoppel, payment,
and failure ties
on.
consideration,
establishment
one
Appeal
<3=1852(2)
recovery, although submis-
15.
which
defeat
—Admission
special
containing
gen-
account,
error,
of items of
all such
book
issue
if
sion
held harm-
less, where entire
eral issues was
violation of Vernon’s
book later admitted with-
objection.
1984a,
St.
error
Ann. Civ.
jury’s
harmless, in
affirmative answer
view
Admission of evidence of items of book ac-
kept
error,
harmless,
as to
a certain
second
whether
to
settlement
count
held
if
plaintiff
plaintiff
object
defendant
between
con-
failed to
when
book
entire
complete
of all claims
stituted
satisfaction
was thereafter offered in evidence.
judgments between them.
Compromise
<3=23(2)—
16.
and settlement
<3=350(3)
Trial
to warrant
10.
held
Evidence of items in transactions
in account
—Evidence
special
plaintiff
submission
issue
to whether set-
between
and defendant held admissi-
sought
continuing
fully
tlement
satisfied
to be
ble
show
transactions
enforced.
them.
pleaded
In action
son
son
father to enforce
defendant
Where
that a certain
purchased,
conveyance
a
claims
which
which
defendant
pleaded
complete compromise'
satisfaction of such
and settlement of all
special
up
time,
held to warrant submission of
evidence
to that
items
toas
whether a certain settlement con-
issue
stituted
transactions between them before and after
judgments
a full satisfaction
such
continuing
settlement was admissible to
show
claims between them.
transactions between them as
by and known to defendant.
<3=350(3)
special
Trial
is-
—Submission
<3=1053(7)
whether
sue
error
execution
and 17.
—Admission
testimony
defendant
satisfied
which
sustain
defendant’s claim
damages,
exemplary
error,
harmless,
to enforce held issue
evidence.
where such
removed from case.
In action
father to enforce
father to enforce
purchased,
purchased
son had
submis-
which son
and to
enjoin
disposing
property,
issue as to whether note execut-
sion
ed
complete
from
of his
accepted
by plaintiff
exemplary
and defendant
father filed cross-action for
testimony
judg- damages,
satisfaction of
admission of
father’d
Key-Numbered Digests
<§=jFor
cases see same
KEY-NUMBER all
Indexes
269 SOUTHWESTERN
suit,
BAUGH,
January 2, 1918,
injured
by filing
J. On
of
matter of-actual
credit was
Wolf, Sr., conveyed
Wolf, Jr., 3,280
whole
to John
exemplary
eliminated
Tex.,
acres of land
Zavalla
case.
$12,000; $200
an
cash,
date,
consideration of
$1,800,
years after
note No. 1 for
due 5
<&wkey;916
Judgment
—Abstract
*3
each,
3,
2,
$2,500
4,
and
for
notes
and 5
proof
lands in
owned
and
that defendant
filed
such
14,
date,
12, 13,
pay-
years
due
and 15
en-
county
action to
held admissible
pleadings
judgment,
in 1921
Some time
view of
able to John
Sr.
force
sought.
Wolf, Sr.,
relief
partition
his
John
a
I
by
against
enforce
father to
children,
amongst
In
son
property
action
other
seven
his
purchased, in which
judgment
which son
a
things,
them,
'amongst
assigning to
by abstract
lien
have
father
upon
notes, subject, however,
these
a
void, and
judgment
null
Bank,
them,
National
Austin
abstract of
plaintiff
admitted
retaining
on
for
interest
himself
judgment,
in view
December,
during his
lifetime.
sought, such abstract
relief
affirmative
ment
county
ble;
fully
1922,
Wolf, Jr.,
against his
John
suit
land
owned
and evidence that
sisters,
father,
bank,
admissi-
all
brothers
was filed
required
as
being
seeking
"on these notes
offset
judgment lien
a
suit
in a
to foreclose
judgment
as
amount
a
in favor
rendered
property.
specific
on
against his
National Bank
the American
Malone,
G.
and W.
knowing
<&wkey;55Party
im-
19. New trial
8,
September
1896,
$3,518,
he
on
which
for
jurors
submit-
proper
before
conduct
November,
purchased
mis- claimed
failing
complain,
ted,
waived such
1896,
bank,
from
also asked
conduct.
enjoined
sub-
was
trans-
all
the defendants
before
be
knew
Where
picnic
jurors
a
disposing
pending
ferring
rode
that three
plaintiff was without
in
his father.
there was
ment.
land in Zavalla
Bank
ments,
tiff
thereto.
plaintiff be
having
tion,
defendants
lief
ment be declared null and void and that
Ms
in bitterness to
cember
of Travis
and claims due
created
defendant’s
said suit was
dangering
claims
him,
pleas
lowing issues submitted to them:
son,
the defendant
the future.
enforce said
fied and
tional
John
ber
time
any
judgment
uary
“Question No. 2.
“Question
The defendant
(2)
The
(3)
trust
might
is therefore
whose
father;
sum or sums of
note
benefit
as follows:
That
so
That
Wolf,
Bank v.
against
1922? Answer:
filed in the office of the
upon,
the institution
for
far
hold such
in cause No.
discharge
given
owe to
his
debt he
a
the transfer
paid
G.
last of
adopted
in the sale
of his
his father.
property by
No. 1. Did the
Jr., by
restrained from
judgment against
complete
(3)
off
alleged
W. Malone
health;
Ms father
in his old
claimed
applicable
from one
estopped from
tried
vex, harass,
county, on
that whatever
Ed. Anderson et
Mm
(1)
father,
Was
money
of all
the American
the answer and
John
Sr.
against
plaintiff,'
to a
may
abstract
For
of this
to have been
compromise,
paid;
the settlement of
consideration
No.’
(2)
And that
funds
virtue of
under
and,
trust
Wolf,
differences, debts,
and O.
age,
have attached
said
to declare satis-
January 2,-1918,
plaintiff against
defendant John the
suit
against
account of
conveyance to
affirmative
attempting
American Na-
asserting
belonging
paid on De-
Jr.,
county
judgment
and for en- against any of the defendants.
Sr.,
liens were order
*4
thereafter
embarrass
Wolf, Sr.,
al.,
plaintiff’s
National
and John sufficient
satisfac-
brought
Decem-
install-
assign-
Ander-
his
at the allegations
as to
plain-
other ment,
clerk
Jan-
fol-
use
Jr.,
co-
re-
to,
American National Bank
John
for the
John
son,
swer:
fendants
nullified the old American National Bank
theretofore
Answer:
ning
due on said
American National Bank v. O. Ed. Anderson
Wolf,
the
county,
on
Bank v. O. Ed.
his
the last abstract of
attempting
court' to sustain
late to the
ters to which
convention
propositions
asked that
ositions
et
pleá
doned
raised
court under
on this
“Question
“Question No. 5. Did the defendant John
The court rendered
[2, 3] The fifth
al.?
general
August 12, 1922,
property be
accepted by
G. W.
abstract
account between the two
Wolf, Jr.,
for affirmative
Wolf, Sr.,
Sr.,
Yes.
jury,
sum
dissolved
Answer: Yes.”'
and restrained John
assignments.
are
portion
any, was harmless.
It was
ppint,
in accordance with said
tMs
own
running
judgment
asking
could.
plaintiff was
No. 4.
granted,
without
relate to failure of the trial
sufficiency of the
appeal
Anderson
$2,683, given
liens
as an evidence
case,
asserts error of the trial
hut,
plaintiff’s general exception
propositions
permanently
properly have been fuller
land Travis
accounts
and John
Was
accepted by
are directed were aban
defendants’
the date
relief. He
merit,
declared
is
John
on a balance due
of date
damages.
The first four of these
with the
sixth
general
prosecuted.
against
et
we
null and void. His
were not submitted
place
American
al.,
Wolf, Jr.,
between
because the mat
as a
think
filed in Travis
propositions
Wolf,
thereby
parties.
in the cause of
April 10, 1908,
of law based
null
old
injured.,
G. Ed. Ander-
demurrer.
the defendant
county
county, Tex.,
was it
These
balance due
plea in
for the de-
the balance
defendant’s
Prom tMs
injunction
they"
offered in
issues as
Sr.?
Mm,
Jr.,
the two?
National
findings,
filing
and his
on
given
prop
judg
clerk
run-
void
An-
The
and.
re
re
It
(Tex.
¿92
SOUTHWESTERN.
his suit at will. Bradford v.
tive
lief asked for
as
on.
ing
pleadings
subject-matter on which each
tive
action.
by pleas
those
Apache
parallel cases to
fore
The eases
Chandler
nor were
evidence
was concluded. There
[Tex.
necessary
ment,
pellant
refusing
This was
were
judgment
it,
poses
tiff
void
have such
pleadings
proposition. Defendant’s
plea
upon
purpose
ed
tween
ner
v.
G. W.
ered
plaintiff,
the
Travis
or thereafter
Plaintiff
defense
Polytechnic (Tex.
doubt
standing
as
deavoring
[5]
[4]
Vanderlip,
property
fully
in Travis
issues,
relief,
defenses were
us
as
for
in
issue before
relates to
cases the
In his
There is
not
Civ.
John
if defendant’s
county.
addition
to .John
connection
a
very
asserts
This could be done
Cotton
above set
in the
affirmative
was concluded
alone,
appellant’s
of both
[Tex. Civ.
upon
therefore
their
but
direct
to foreclose
a collateral
taken
and the
requested
fixing
that is
App.]
them,
cited
of the liens created
obstacle
plaintiff’s
ninth
judgment.
Wolf,
allow
depended upon
issue
county.
22 Tex.
acquired
the abstract
App.)
a
no merit
the asserted
court held that
supplemental
Wolf,
rights in
error of the
Oil
not
case as
This was
attack,
could
defense
of the
189
the court.
with the
sufficient.
Sr.,
right
offered.
out,
him
App.]
relief
identical
Co.
sought
seventh
removed,
plea
Sr.,
plea
make them
tenth
If the
attack
E.C.
one before us.
The
to take
if he
not
of dither
writing
S.
v. Watkins
sufficient.
involved the same
defendant
by plaintiff.
case.
51
he
in 'reconvention
appellant’s
should be
therefore dismiss other issues
sufficiently
interest of
no error in
W.
pleadings of the
sought
propositions
Traction
upon
liability
petition admits
S. W.
proposition.
again
1083)
236 S.
only
Jones
trial court
*5
judgment was
This also
subject-matter Appellant’s propositions
upon
wise affected issue,
only
280; Bourke
reconvention,
the manifest
by plaintiff’s
Hamilton,
brought,
the case be
legal
they present
It
land owned
before
(Peters
entitled
parties to
lien. We ner
the
sued
defended
changed,
to clear 257 S. W.
But this
are not
affirma
affirma
nonsuit.
the
in said
all
the re
litigat
status,
W. 73.
consid- answer, first,
as
situat-
et al. edge
eighth
Co. v.
plain
bring
Wag-
upon
this.
up
dis-
not
the
ap
old
be
en-
v.
it
have
could duced on .that issue were the
pears
It
evidence
.stances
ficiently pleaded perhaps,
Brown-Shoe Co.
—far
In such
business
John
defense,
notice
having
of the
of the
plaintiff
Though
they
tion on the
Without
tion
merged
was made
ment
the
the
November
charged
were 40
necessarily
to set
ruling
pellant,
rendered,
suit was filed in said cause on
the
ber 8th. The
issory
ant John Wolf’s
of
and,
National
of.
Egery
v.
154 S.
Tex. 59.
[8]
[7]
was not submitted
accord
Furst,
assignment
allegations
lodged
(Tex.
set
The
third,
not to have been
Nor
Wolf,
suffice
res
more so
plaintiff.
(cid:127)
them out
W.
v.
conducted
John
books, notes, cheeks, etc.,
into
not
of this case
relationship
forth facts
and his
days
offered
involved,
what
setting
condition
question
possession
Power,
Bank in satisfaction of the
adjudieata;
Civ.
do we sustain
20th,
Edwards
See, also,
on
general
been done.
Sr.,
it to
pleaded anyway,
the
fully
it
after the
lengthy,
peculiarly
November
assignment
App.)
defendant
pleaded,
full
his defenses were.
rendered therein
covered
than
are not
satisfaction was
date
A.
must
judgment,
This was admissible
that it set
out
5 Tex.
ato
say
before said
Snodgrass
cases
second
improperly
D.
them.
been
detail.
demurrer to the defend-
Sr.,
accord and
could have
usury,
R. S.
pleaded
that under the circum
pleaded
1896,”
considered. The
large
res
it
therefore
and it
they
facts
second,
Co.
subject
plaintiff’s
that of his
reversed. Graham-
501;
on the
20th. Hence there
within the
by plaintiff.
would have been
to John
11 to
the
put plaintiff upon
but
amended
adjudieata
contended
was immaterial.
might
plaintiff himself
(Tex.
up
though
extent the
were sufficient.
relied
charges
cited.
pleaded usury
Jones v.
by him
July
the American
so no
“that
281;
between the
to the
July 7, 1896,
matters that
15, inclusive,
satisfaction.
unnecessary
books
insufficient;
on
given.
complained
have
have
and before
possession
Civ.
By
Wolf, Jr.,
for him
upon
not suf
and his
7th
a
on this
Septem
Jackson
father.
knowl
conten
on
injury
by ap
virtue
intro
objec
prom
been,
as a
1900;
App.)
Wag
over-
very
been
was
The
ap
count
him
ments
father,
judgment. According
jnony,
books
including
by
puted
port
account
and his
tensive transactions between them
partners
volved
one issue
charge
him on the
this
paid
complain
ry
and his father
ship
tion of the
ing
ond,
be conceded
judgment
there was
lant
payment,
rately
sion of a
cluded,
the
general issues,
1, p.
specific payments;
submission of this issue.
is
cluded all that
The suit
consideration,
these
Tes.)
1902, during
their answer to
think the last contention
Sr.,
no merit 'in this contention.
sufficient
the
on
appellant,
books
in answer
rendered
closed on
error was
assignment
any.
defended
only
off,
one of
because
a mixed
St.
Appellant’s
complains
however,
defenses
Jr. The
kept by appellant,
However,
as submitted
all
to be submitted
upon
American
more
father,
including
it,
found
the
from 1891
the note
Acts
of issue
the
of fact.
general
kept by appellant,
and failure
moneys
$632.10
following grounds:
Was
no evidence
his father were
note. At
appellant
to
perhaps
them,
jury’s
the
that
there was
September 1,1902, according
matter
than
on the
question
that
of
he
would defeat
the
executed to
to
and was
no
dispose
submitted contained
establishment of
that
his
that
weight
in view of the
no
propositions
National
favor
to that bank
issue
the
his
question
three
paid
evidence to authorize
transfer of
the
1984a),
then
he
one issue
time,
payment;
consequence.
to about
it
1 submitted
account,
father
involved. No
the time the
this
installments
(Vernon’s
of law and
was not
of consideration
fourth,
which could
of the
payment by
taking
was not
distinctly
violative
appellant
grounds:
of record
include,
But
at least
numerous
No. We think duced
as shown
until
effect
to
Bank,
requiring
out for or
the
No.
his
question
his
charged
have sustained
for a
we
question
First,
Nos.
this
third,
of fact.
evidence,
because it
the
September 1,
ease.
recovery.
bank
acquired
by
him
father were between the
father owed es and
some
It is
estopped
jury’s
theretofore liar
think there
more
the execu
is correct.
of section said that
Even
claims
fact;
we think
appellant
Estoppel, upon. Finally
occurred,
repeated
to John D. 'Childress to San
valuable
paid
partner
WOLF
showing belonging
because and
submis
install
by
time
was a
one'
Appel
undis
No.
testi The
these
sepa
Ann.
than
find
sup
sec
the
the
the no
(269
the
We tion
ac
the true that
his
ex
ju
in
in
in
he
to
If claim
it
2
-
3.W.)
ed
. WOLF
judgment.”
National Bank
whatever
pellant
mission
*6
ly
homa
We
mentioned in this
this
minded to.” Childress
in
advised
dence. The
clearly
amination that he
warrant
the
in the claim the
their
ty-second
him
thing;
owed
ranch
timony
them, fully
pellant,
motion to dissolve the
one
ment
efforts
his
I.
uary 2,
of their
transactions out of
part
ther was not
conveyance
covering
[11]
[12]
be declared
into
view
the abstract
father’s
only
question
think that the
of
though
appellant
knowledge
notes for
him
was
he
against his
and lost
counties,
cent;
There
There was no error
numerous
the
of I.
to
owed
No. 5. After
record of
the
the
those
liens
proposition complaining
he had
continued
to the
obtain
the
the
included
partnership.
father to
ranch
he
note for
period
the son’s
large
of
satisfied.
settlement between
the trial
of
appellant’s father,
jury
the bank “in
is no
D.
Wolf, Jr., disputed the
him
satisfied
himself
by
null
heavily
may
him
executed
the land
effecting
of
replication
it.
he would
he
res
Childress,
shipped
items,
sum
the
son.
settlement,
such
subsequent
merit in
evidence was sufficient
about
and void.
father and
the
of
have been created there
in the
$4,244.65
could
sell it
purpose
business sale of
finding
recording by appellant
question
adjudicata
pleadings
claiming
setting
thereafter
testified on direct
more
Antonio,
personal
injunction,
further testified
things,
with the
limitation,
According
appellant,
appears
claim
all
his
was not
Included within
money growing
$30,000,
them;
his
Sr.,
and did
hold
was,
appellant’s
settlement made
by
father executed
the son’s
to his
than
but it
to the termina
out his defens
$12,000.
in Travis
cattle to Okla
him,
Thereupon
was not
included with
No.
arising
that his
the American
pay
claiming
and the evi
transactions
settling
that his
his father’s
claim
asked
accounting,
specifically
submitting
of
applicable.
went
to the
this
3. It was
who
“if he
25
the
was
him
$2,683
land,
not owe
the
ther-e
father’s
on Jan
he had
by the
out
use
years.
claim,
merg
G. W.
twen
latter
cattle
intro
pecu
final
grew
kept
any
only
sub
tes
ap
ex
ap
fa
of
to
so
n
269
SOUTHWESTERN
plete compromise
complains
to that time
transactions
known
mot
and
lather
satisfied
ing
ther at the
in
lant’s
appellant
father’s
no error
conveyance
240; Ry.
transactions
ositions
date
Notes
thereafter thereafter jection tion in ninth tailment of first Slayden the court’s ant count raise books twenty-sixth proposition ship existing not have purposely letter ror in this. land.’’ cally The bill caused [14,15] What
[13] necessity instance, appellant intrusted during all Wolf, Sr.’s, pleadings which he Proposition propositions business and prove instructed verdict has These he knew injured issue, refrained from accounts, rendered such error offered Palmo, action in further exceptions already Not appellant. his for a discussion failure properly him as between pleadings as was wholly with September 8, of which him him. twenty-eighth about the contents ’in in evidence lost, testimony appellant been discussed permitting upon. him fact Tex. shows submitted. confidential Even that- he should the entire object in his favor. enforcing time items presents upon evidence, testify admissible There if error keeping thereon their associa complains when him and without ob of book Ms immaterial. appellant’s opinion that, _ book no error. relation obviates its face father’s twenty- defend offered practi could since have liens date cur but ac er lant abstract foreclosed on in this sought, all ciency was admissible. The stract from stract land proof ings. relate ate that discussion. disregards entitled tire which the ed without the whole matter ant, jectionable dicial, to ed. exemplary damages. Appellant’s support
[18] notes testimony However, enforcing their ' Appellant’s propositions We testimony Travis relied of the abstract of and the Wolf, Sr.’s, ownership not admissible own, testimony merely have considered in of the evidence defendant and any, eliminated from the we have pleading, of Dr. well as the upon by could father’s already testimony. testimony should have liens created “but the statement of facts- Wilmot, light properly was not actual and harmless. cases lien is Appellant apparently read Sr.’s, him land.” Under such- insisting purposely discussed defenses set under the affirmative relief proof carefully need not reiter cited apply cross-action for was offered complained and are of appellees same, have been sustain- 34 to fact any event,, connection of defend exemplary offered case, refrained objection, conclud- specific the ob- the en- plead preju- up were- suffi such, and- ab ab be- in.