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: 179
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
1875.] EASON v. LOCHERER. '179
Opinion of the Court.
other outstanding liabilities of the firm? If so, they would
not be valic offsets.
If, however, it were shown that this note was given as an
isolated transaction, and not as a final settlement between
Coller & Ragland, or although it was a final settlement, if by
mistake these matters of indebtedness were left out, and not by
design, they would be valid offsets to the extent of Ragland's
equitable interest in the note.
Such are the rules pertaining to the matters in defense.
The evidence tends strongly to establish, that both Ragland
and Coller had put their property out of their hands, and that
they are the real parties in interest in this suit, which is being
carried on for them by proxy, through Eason on one side, and
Locherer on the other, both of whom were acting under a pretended
claim, based upon a pretended and not a real consideration.
The jury, it may be, seeking to penetrate the maze of
fiction in which the case was involved, in order to reach a
starting-point of solid reality, within their comprehension,
propounded the question to the Court, as follows:
"' To the Judge: If your honor please, the jury would like
"to know, in case they find the note is not Eason's, can the
"jury find for IRagland
To which the Judge responded as follows:
" Gentlemen of the Jury : In response to your inquiry
"whether, in case you find the note is not Eason's, you can
" find for Ragland,'
" You are instructed that James N. Ragland, the indorser of
", the note, is not a party to this suit. So that the question you
" are to determine is, whether the plaintiff Eason is entitled to
"recover; if he is not entitled to recover on the note, then the
"finding of the jury should be in favor of the defendant."
Whereupon the jury found a verdict for the defendant.
This charge was well calculated to mislead the jury. For if
Raglaud had the right to recover anything ou this note, if
Here’s what’s next.
This book can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
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.. (texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth28531/m1/187/: accessed March 28, 2017), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, texashistory.unt.edu; .