Cases argued and decided in the Supreme Court of Texas, during the latter part of the Tyler term, 1874, and the first part of the Galveston term, 1875. Volume 42. Page: 682
viii, 704 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:
682 INDEX.
JUDGMENT--Continued.
6. A judgment rendered in October, 1865, and recorded in February,
1866, operated as a lien on all lands of the judgment-creditor situated
in the county where the judgment was recorded, for four years after
the date of registry, and had priority over a mortgage-lien subsequently
created in favor of a third party within the four years; nor was this
priority lost by a failure to re-register the judgment within four years,
if suit was brought within this period, to subject the mortgaged property
to the satisfaction of the judgment. Wright v. Rhodes, 523.
JUDICIAL KNOWLEDGE.
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.
JURISDICTION.
ELECTIONS, 1, 2, 3, 4. INJUNCTION, 2.
(GARNISHMENT, 1, 2. PRACTICE IN SUPREME COURT, 4.
Under the Probate Act of 1848, the jurisdiction of the Probate
Court was not dependent on the averment in the petition for administration
of facts showing its necessity; nor will the absence of any evidence
of the presentation or approval or existence of such claims
against the estate require such administration to be held void; nor is
it necessary to the validity of an administration that the reason or
necessity for administration appear of record. Kleinecke v. Woodward,
311.
JURY.
PRACTICE, 19.
1. A statement made by one juror to another, after they had retired
to consider of their verdict, in regard to the character of the accused, is
not the character of misconduct contemplated by the statute which
would authorize a new trial. Austin v. The State, 355.
2. A juror, in answer to questions touching his qualifications, said
"that he had read the report of the evidence in the case of The State v.
"A. G. Walker (jointly indicted with defendant); that he had formed
"an opinion thereon as to the guilt or innocence of the accused; that it
"would require other and different evidence to change that opinion ;
'that the opinion so formed would not influence his verdict in the
" slightest degree; and that he would go into the jury-box and give the
"accused a fair and impartial trial, according to the law and evidence
"appearing on the trial." Held, that the court below should not have
been satisfied that the juror was impartial. Black v. The State, 377.
3. Light impressions, which may be supposed to yield to the testimony
offered, and which may leave the mind open to a fair consideration of
the testimony, constitute no objection to a juror; but those strong and
deep impressions, which will close the mind against the testimony that
may be offered in opposition to them, which will combat the testimony
and resist its force, do constitute a sufficient objection to him. Id.
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 Texas, during the latter part of the Tyler term, 1874, and the first part of the Galveston term, 1875. Volume 42., book, 1881; St. Louis, Mo.. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth28531/m1/690/: accessed April 19, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu; .