Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

32 Tex. 774

Jacobs v. Cunningham

Texas Supreme Court

Decided July 1, 1870

Texas Supreme Court · decided 1870-07-01

Error from DeWitt. Tried below before the Hon. J. J. Holt. In February, 1867, Mrs. Cunningham sued Jacobs on a note for $880, made by him to her in September, 1864. The original petition was drawn as though the plaintiff was a feme sole. Jacobs pleaded in abatement that the plaintiff was a married woman, being the wife of Samuel Cunningham, who was a resident of DeWitt county, and within the jurisdiction of the court.

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently March 1937

2 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1870-07-01

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Lindsay, J.

¶1Two objections seem to be urged against the judgment in the District Court. 1. That the suit was brought by a feme covert, without the joinder of her husband. 2. That there was no canceled revenue stamp upon the note, which was the foundation of the action, and the instrument of proof upon the trial.

¶21. The statute, Art. 4636, allows the wife, upon the failure or neglect of the husband, to sue for any of her effects by authority of the court. In instituting suit by the "wife, it would be most regular to aver in the original petition the cause of such failure or neglect. But, with leave of the court, this averment may be made in the amended petition, and the cause proceed to trial. In this case a plea of abatement was interposed to the original petition for the want of such averment. Upon a virtual confession of the truth of the plea, the *776plaintiff asked leave to amend, and in the amendment alleged the insanity of the husband. The court, therefore, did right to entertain the suit and to admit the proof of the insanity of the husband, which the statement of facts shows was sufficiently made manifest. The existence of the cause of the failure or neglect of the husband was also impliedly admitted by the defendant in his execution and delivery of the note sued upon to a feme covert.

¶32. The mere failure to cancel the revenue stamp upon an instrument, required by law to be stamped, as it does not defraud the government, is not made invalid as an instrument of evidence. The judgment is affirmed.

¶4Affirmed.

/32/tex/774 · .json · Public domain