Reports of cases argued and decided in the Supreme Court of the State of Texas, during Austin session, 1857, and part of Galveston session, 1858. Volume 20. Page: 91

                                
1857.]             ERSKINE V. WILSON.                79
Suit by defendant in error against plaintiff in error, commenced
April 10th, 1854, on a promissory note of the defendant
for $1,197, dated November 28th, 1840, payable to Winston
L. Reausseau. The petition alleged that on the 22d day of
September, 1847, John Reausseau, the only heir at law and
legal representative of the said Winston L. Reausseau, who
had, previous to the 22d day of September, 1847, departed this
life, assigned and transferred to plaintiff all the right, title,
interest and claim that he, the said John Reausseau, had, or
that his said father, Winston L. Reausseau, had at his death.
Defendant pleaded general denial, payment and the statute
of limitations.
On the 8th May, 1856, plaintiff amended, by allegation that
the note sued on had been lost; that within less than four years
next before the institution of this suit, said defendant, over
his own proper signature in writing, acknowledged the justness
of plaintiff's demand, and promised in writing, over the signature
of said defendant, to pay said debt; and that at the date
of the note sued on defendant had given a deed of trust on
two slaves to secure the payment thereof; and plaintiff prayed
for an order to sell said slaves to pay the judgment. On these
pleadings, the cause was submitted to the court without a
jury.
Plaintiff made affidavit of the loss of the original note, and
gave in evidence a certified copy of a deed of trust from defendant
to Augustus C. Jones, dated November 28th, 1840, on
two slaves [79] to secure the payment of said defendant's
bond to Winston L. Reausseau, of even date therewith, due
and payable on or before March 1st, 1842, bearing interest
from date at ten per cent. per annum. Plaintiff then gave in
evidence two letters from defendant to the plaintiff, one dated
June 16th, 1851, and the other September 11th, 1851. They
purported to be in answer to letters from the plaintiff, and unless
qualified by the letters to which they were replies, or other
like evidence, they were acknowledgments of the justness of
the whole of plaintiff's claim.  They also acknowledged the
right of plaintiff to receive payment, one purporting to cover
a remittance of $150 in part payment, in a draft on New Or91