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: 257
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
1875.] TAYLOR, KNAPP & CO., V, FORE. 257
Opinion of the Court.
sustained, h trial was had upon the merits of the petition for
injunction, which resulted in a verdict as follows, to wit:
"We, the jury, find a verdict in favor of the plaintiff."
Upon this verdict there was a judgment in regular form,
concluding as follows: "that the judgment rendered in the
"County Court of De Witt county, on the 13th day of April,
" 1869, in Cause No. 39, styled Knapp & Co. v. Fore & Shel"ton,
be set aside, and the same is hereby declared null and
" void as to the defendant Daniel W. Fore. And it appearing
"to the court that the said Daniel W. Fore having now paid
"into court all costs adjudged in said Cause No. 39, in the
"County Court, as well as the costs herein incurred, it is or"dered
by the court that the said Daniel W. Fore be now
"permitted to plead his discharge in bankruptcy, obtained by
"him in the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis"
trict of Texas, at Galveston, 4th day of January, 1869, in
" said Cause No. 39, above styled."
Taylor, Knapp & Co. sued out a writ of error to have this
judgment revised, and defendant in error now moves to dismiss
the writ of error because the judgment is an interlocutory
and not a final judgment.
Such a judgment was regarded as interlocutory, and the
appeal on that account dismissed in the case of Goss v. MlcClaren,
8 Texas R., 342, the opinion being delivered by
Justice Lipscomb. The same decision was made in Stewart v.
Jones, 9 Texas R., 69. These decisions did not call in question
the right to grant a new trial, but decided that such new
trial must be had before the judgment could be considered
When the case of Goss v. McClaren came up again, an opinion
delivered by Justice Wheeler suggests a doubt as to its
being an interlocutory judgment, without undertaking to
change the rule by any positive decision, it being unnecessary.
(17 Texas R., 114.) Other decisions since that have doubted
Chancellor Kent said that "anciently courts of equity exer17
Here’s what’s next.
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.. (texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth28531/m1/265/: accessed August 24, 2017), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, texashistory.unt.edu; .