Reports of cases argued and decided in the Supreme Court of the State of Texas during December term, 1848. Volume 3. Page: 46
vi, 659 [660] ; 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:
46 TOMPKINS & CO. VS. BENNETT, ADM R.
was competent for the court to decree a discharge. I have said
that I did not understand the objection went to the authentication
of the record, because, if it was so intended, it should have
been more explicit. I am not to be understood, however, as
expressing any doubt as to the sufficiency of the authentication.
It is true, if the c idence had been offered before the annexa
tion of this state to the United States, the authentication would
not have been sufficient to authorize it to have been read in
evidence. [See Phillips vs. Lyon, 1 vol. Tex. Rep. 392; Wellborn
vs. Carr, id. 469.] I will, however, return to tiie point
made by the plaintiff's counsel, that a distinct certificate was
required to notice one argument urged in his brief. He supposes
" the decree of the judge might have been made just as
it was, and yet the decree afterwards attacked in the same court
for fraud, or because the bankrupt had not complied with all
the lawful orders of the court, and the certificate, consequently,
withheld, and never delivered." Now, such a presumption is
repugnant to both the law and the record. After the decree,
discharging the bankrupt, the court had nothing more to do
with him. All that the law required of the bankrupt had been
complied with and adjudicated, before the decree, and in that
court the time had passed for charging him with fraud. Again,
had there been any proceedings directing the decree of discharge
to be suspended, and, consequently, the certificate, it
would have been shown by the record that was given in evidence.
But, to my reading of the bankrupt law, the court,
sitting in bankruptcy, had no power or control over the certificate
of the clerk, after the decree declaring the petitioner a
bankrupt and decreeing his discharge.
I shall proceed to consider the next objection taken by the
plaintiffs in error, that the court erred in refusing the evidence
to impeach the discharge on the ground of fraud. It will be
seen by the statement of facts, that the evidence offered by the
plaintiff, and ruled out by the court, was this: ' The plaintiff
offered to prove, by a witness on the stand, that Hall owned
real estate in Galveston, before the time of his discharge in
bankruptcy, as set up by the defendant, and continued to own
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. Reports of cases argued and decided in the Supreme Court of the State of Texas during December term, 1848. Volume 3., book, 1881; St. Louis, Mo.. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth28571/m1/52/: accessed April 24, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu; .