Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

20 Tex. 181

Dowling v. Duke

Texas Supreme Court

Decided July 1, 1857

Texas Supreme Court · decided 1857-07-01

Error from Lavacca. Tried below before the Hon. Fielding Jones. Suit by defendant in error, commenced March 10th, 1856, against plaintiff in error and Thomas A. Hester, on their joint and several promissory note for $780, dated Oct. 4, 1854, and payable on the first day of Oct. 1855.

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently March 1884

1 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1857-07-01

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Wheeler, J.

¶1If the averments of the answer be true, the plaintiff has wholly failed to perform on his part the contract, of which he is seeking to compel performance by the defendants. It is quite too clear for argument, that he cannot enforce the contract by compelling the defendants to pay the purchase money, until he has performed or shown a willingness and ability to perform on his part. The answer, if true, presented a good defence to the action; and it was error to sustain the demurrer.

¶2It is said the exceptions to the original answer were waived ; exceptions appearing to have been sustained to the amended answer. We do not so regard it. There were no exceptions to the “amended answer.” The ruling of the Court can have had reference to nothing but the demurrer to the answer. It was sustained to the answer as amended. The judgment is reversed as to the defendant who has prosecuted the Writ of error, and the cause remanded.

¶3Reversed and remanded."

/20/tex/181 · .json · Public domain