Reports of cases argued and decided in the Supreme Court of the State of Texas during December term, 1848. Volume 3. Page: 93
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:
SWENSON ET AL. VS. WALKER'S ADIM'RS. 93
port. Bnt the practical construction is understood to have
been otherwise, and these certificates have been recommended
for patent by the officers appointed to examine the validity of
claims on the government. The safe ground to assume would,
perhaps, be found in considering all certificates issued before
the first Thursday in February as bearing date on that day,
and this would not permit them to have any undue preference
over certificates issued in conformity with a correct construction
of the statute. This certificate was not located until
eight or ten days, at least, after the first Thursday in February,
and derived no advantage from its being issued in Januarys
and the defendant, Bracken, has no just cause of complaint on
this ground, so far as the facts can be gleaned from the record.
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and a new
trial awarded.
S. M. SWENSON et al. vs. THE ADMINISTRATORS Of WILLIAM
WALKER - Appeal from Fort Bend County.
It is an irregularity in practice to take up and argue a demurrer after a jury
has been impaneled to try the cause, but this irregularity cannot affect the
judgment rendered on the demurrer.
A party may avail himself of the statute of limitations upon demurrer. If
the petition does not show that the plaintiff has a right to su , at the time
he brings his action, a demurrer is the appropriate mode of reaching it.
if the probate judge refuses to permit an administrator to contest a claim
presented against an estate, or to allow an appeal, the district court would,
in the exercise of its jurisdiction, afford a remedy.
Where an administrator verbally admits a claim against the estate of his intestate
to be good, and that it will be paid, and thereby induces a third
person to take the claim, he will be estopped from interposing any defense
against it in thc hands of such third person. [9 Tex. 517; 14 Te:. 312; 18
Tex. 373; 25 Tex. Sup. 120.]
CAMIPBELL and JONES for appellants.
HARRIS and PERLEY for appellees.1
Mr. Justice LIPSOOMB delivered the opinion of the court,
Judge WHEELER dissenting.
NOTE -The counsel on both sides in this case filed very lengthy and elaborate
arguments, but no briefs. According to the plan of the present volume,
the reporters are precluded from giving the arguments in extenso, and are not
willing to assume the responsibility of cutting them down to what would be regarded
as ordinary briefs; they are therefore compelled to omit them altogether.
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/m1/99/: accessed April 18, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu; .