Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

25 Tex. 162

Dignowitty v. Alexander

Texas Supreme Court

Decided October 15, 1860

Texas Supreme Court · decided 1860-10-15

The case was tried before Hon. Thomas J. Devine, one of the district judges. Amanda A. Dignowitty, acting as the agent of her husband, A. M. Dignowitty, on 28th February, 1859, prayed for an injunction against D. 0.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1860-10-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently May 1962

9 state decisions

3018601870188018901900191019201930194019501960decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

"Wheeler, C. J.

¶1—The. only question presented by the record which requires notice is the ruling of the court admitting parol evidence to prove that it was intended by the parties to make the note payable at a different time from that expressed in the note. And in reference to this supposed error, it is only necessary to say, that, if error, it was an immaterial error. The want of maturity of the note was not set up as a ground for staying proceedings until after the maturity of the note according to its terms. ¡Nor was the note set up in the answer and a recovery sought upon it until after its maturity. The note was made to bear interest from its date. It was not material, therefore, whether it was due on the 1st of January 1859, or at twelve months from its date. The ruling in question was not material, as affecting the merits or the question of costs.

¶2There is no error in the judgment, and it is

¶3Affirmed.

/25/tex/162 · .json · Public domain