Cases argued and decided in the Supreme Court of the State of Texas, during the latter part of the Tyler term, 1884, and the Galveston term, 1885. Volume 63. Page: 2
xxiv, 824 p., 22 cm.View a full description of this book.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
2 JACOBs, BERNIIEIM & Co. v. HAWKINS. [Tyler Term,
Opinion of the court.
and wife to appellants on lot No. 8 and half of lot No. 1, in block
No. 15, in the town of Greenville, and block No. 27, to secure its
payment. The defer"ants set up no defense against the note, but
the defendants J. W. Hawkins and his wife, S. T. Hawkins, answered
that lot 8 and half of lot No. 1, in block 15, were at the
time of the execution of the mortgage, and continued to be, a part
of their homestead, and asked that the mortgage be held void as to
said lots. On the trial the court, over objections of plaintiffs, permitted
defendants to open and conclude the argument.
The cause was tried by a jury, who found in favor of appellants
on the note, and in favor of J. W. Hawkins and wife in regard to
homestead, and judgment was rendered in favor of appellants
against J. W. Hawkins and S. M. Hawkins for the sum of $1,298.33½,
and canceling appellants' mortgage upon lot No. 8 and half of lot
No. 1.
if. 2M. Brooks and Hunter & Putnam, for appellants, cited:
Wheeler v. Moody, 9 Tex., 372; Andrews v. Marshall, 26 Tex., 212;
Graham v. Gautier, 21 Tex., 111; Buford v. Bostick, 58 Tex., 63;
Andrews v. Hagadon, 54 Tex., 576; Evans v. Womack, 48 Tex.,
230; Iken v. Olenick, 42 Tex., 195; Ashton v. Ingle, 20 Kan., 670;
American R., vol. 27, p. 167.
Brown & Upthegrove and cathews c& Weyland, for appellees,
cited: Shryockyv. Latimer, 57 Tex., 674; Arto v. Maydole, 54 Tex.,
244; Andrews v. Hagadon, 54 Tex., 571; Thomas v. Williams, 50
Tex., 269; Const., art. XVI, sees. 50, 51; R. S., 2235-6; Lee v. Stowe,
57 Tex., 449; R. S., art. 1299; Teal v. Terrell, 58 Tex., 261; Hancock
v. Morgan, 17 Tex., 582; Nolan v. Reed, 38 Tex., 425.
STAYTON, ASSOCIATE JUSTICE.--The fact of homestead or not could
not be determined by any declaration of opinion made by J. W.
Hawkins as a witness, and the court did not err in excluding the
answer to a question which called for such opinion.
* The answer of the defendants J. W. and S. T. Hawkins did not put
in issue the execution of the note or mortgage on which the suit
was brought; nor did it in any manner question the sufficiency of
the consideration on which they were executed, and the evidence of
the witness Harby in this respect was unimportant and would not
have tended to establish any fact which the instruments themselves
did not establish fully.
The declaration of Hawkins as to the character of the property
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This book can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Book.
Texas. Supreme Court. Cases argued and decided in the Supreme Court of the State of Texas, during the latter part of the Tyler term, 1884, and the Galveston term, 1885. Volume 63., book, 1885; Austin, Texas. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth28511/m1/26/: accessed April 25, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu; .