Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

25 Tex. 372

Davis v. Marshall

Texas Supreme Court

Decided July 1, 1860

Texas Supreme Court · decided 1860-07-01

Error from Panola. Tried below before the Hon. C. A. Frazer. Judgment was rendered for the plaintiff for the amount sued for on the note. There was no assignment of errors filed by the plaintiff in error. The other facts are stated in the opinion with sufficient fullness.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1860-07-01

How this case has been cited

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently March 1965

4 state decisions

1018601870188018901900191019201930194019501960decided

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 →

Bell, J.

¶1This was a suit by the defendants in error against the plaintiff in error on a promissory note. The defendant in the court below denied all the allegations of the petition of the plaintiffs, and filed also special pleas. The statement of facts shows that evidence was introduced by the defendant in support of his special pleas, but does not show that the plaintiffs offered any evidence in support of the allegations of their petition. It is not shown that the note sued on was read in evidence. .The case is submitted upon a suggestion of delay by the defendants in error, and we therefore notice all errors presented by the record. Where the defendant to a suit on a promissory note answers by a general denial, the plaintiff must produce the note in evidence. (Matossy v. Frosh, 9 Tex., 610; Able v. Chandler, 12 Tex., 88; Bond v. Mallow, 17 Tex., 636; Kinnard v. Herlock, 20 Tex., 48.)

¶2The judgment is reversed and cause remanded.

¶3Reversed and remanded.

/25/tex/372 · .json · Public domain