Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

26 Tex. 650

Hill v. Clay

Texas Supreme Court

Decided July 1, 1863

Texas Supreme Court · decided 1863-07-01

Error from Washington. Tried below before the Hon. R. E. B. Baylor. On the 6th day of June, 1848, Tacitus Clay petitioned the judge of the District Court of Washington county for a writ of injunction. The petition alleged that Robert W. McCreary was employed by petitioner as his agent to attend to his business in the State of Texas. His agent took charge of the business and possession of the property of .plaintiff in Texas.

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently January 1916

3 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1863-07-01

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Bell, J.

¶1We are of opinion that there is no error in the judgment.

¶2It is plain that the plaintiff below intended, in his original petition, to declare upon the. same cause of action which is more particularly and correctly set forth in his subsequent amendment. In the amendment filed October 6th, 1858, the plaintiff showed cause for his failure to set forth his cause of action with accuracy and particularity in his original petition. He declared that he Was not in possession of the instrument of writing showing the contract between Hill and McCreary, at the time his original petition was filed. He alleged that the instrument of writing was, at the time of filing the original petition, in the hands of Hill and McCreary, and that they withheld it from him, and misrepresented its nature and contents. Under the circumstances, we think that the amended petition filed October 8d, 1855, did not set up such a new cause of action as entitled the defendant to plead the statute of limitations. Nor do we think the court below erred in proceeding to judgment in the case after it hud abated as to McCreary,

¶3The plaintiff below moved to make himself a party as the administrator of McCreary, and this motion was denied because of the objections urged by the defendant, Hill. Although the plaintiff was not, perhaps, a proper person to represent the interests of *654McCreary in this suit, still the court might have made him a party as administrator of McCreary, and protected the defendant, Hill, by its decree. After Hill had objected to making the administrator of McCreary a party, he could not be heard to complain that the case went to judgment without any representative of McCreary. We think the court below instructed the jury correctly as to the law.

¶4Courts of equity act upon the most liberal and enlarged views in all such cases; and it is said, do not proceed upon the idea that strict justice is done, but that the best justice is measured out that can be under the circumstances. (Story’s Equity Jurisprudence, section 468.)

¶5The judgment of the aourt below is affirmed.

¶6Judgment affirmed.

/26/tex/650 · .json · Public domain