Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

33 Tex. 171

Erhard v. Callaghan

Texas Supreme Court

Decided July 1, 1870

Texas Supreme Court · decided 1870-07-01

Tried below before the Hon. E. Basse. Callaghan brought suit May 80, 1867, as a member of the late mercantile firm of C. Callaghan & Co., alleging that on December 24, 1864, in Matamoras one J. Y. Dortigue, being indebted to C. Callaghan & Co. $832 73 in gold and silver coin, at their instance and request, paid over to Erhard the sum of $832 73 in gold and silver coin to the credit of C. Callaghan & Co. and for their use and benefit, -which said sum the said Erhard promised…

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1870-07-01

How this case has been cited

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently September 1951

4 state decisions

20187018801890190019101920193019401950decided

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 →

Morrill, C. J.

¶1The first error assigned is in overruling defendant’s demurrer.

¶2The cause of the demurrer was that the petition did not disclose the names of the firm of Callaghan & Co.

¶3*178This cause- of objection, was met by an’amended petition, setting, forth the names.

¶4The second was in not strife-g out a part of the answer of the witness, Evins, to the fifth interrogatory! ' • '

¶5On the trial the reasons assigned for striding out the answer were because it was not responsive" to- the- question."

¶6The question not being in the record, does not enable us to-mate any decision in the assigned error. It is the- duty of the plaintiff in error to bring up-to this court all such papers and proceedings as are necessary to enable ras -to see the force of his errors. Having failed to- do so-, we pass it by.

¶7Third—The court erred in admitting the deposition! of Evxnk

¶8This deposition was objected to in the-district court, hut" no-reason was assigned, either there or here-, and- of course- we cao . consider none, “ •

¶9Eourth error—The court erred in entering, Judgment against the defendant.

¶10The proceedings disclosed a good cause of action; the testimony fully sustained the allegations in the pleadings of plaintiff and the judge, acting also by consent as a jury, could not legally do-otherwise than render the judgment.

¶11The argument' of the counsel for plaintiff would he very much to the purpose if a foundation-- had been laid for it, either in the proceedings in the district court or in the errors assigned.

¶12Parties have ■ a right to waive, either -openly' or tacitly, the , statutes of 29 Charles II, or 18 Elizabeth, re-enaited in this State, and having done so they must abide the consequences.

¶13-Affirmed.

/33/tex/171 · .json · Public domain