Browning v. Hart & Co.
Citations
- 29 Tex. 271
Syllabus
<p>The 4th section of the act allowing discounts and set-offs declares: “ But should the claim of the plaintiff be reduced to a sum not within the jurisdiction of the court by payment, then judgment shall be given in favor of the plaintiff for the balance due, but the defendant shall recover the costs of the suit.” (Paschal’s Dig., Art. 3446, Note 797.) Where the reduction was not by payment, but by an account which the defendant held against the plaintiff before he gave his note, and which the plaintiff’s agent agreed should be credited on the note, should the evidence be produced, the fact that such an account reduced the principal of the note below §100 did not oust the jurisdiction, nor entitle tfie defendant to costs.</p>
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- Holding that Supreme Court Rule giving the Commission jurisdiction to impose upon judges additional sanctions relating to their right to practice law “is beyond the scope of Section 121 and is therefore unconstitutional.” Id. at 87-88
- Holding that Supreme Court Rule giving the Commission jurisdiction to impose upon judges additional sanctions relating to their right to practice law \is beyond the scope of Section 121 and is therefore unconstitutional.\ Id. at 87-88
- holding “it [is] appropriate for the Bar Association to proceed against the individual in his capacity as a lawyer, as provided for in SCR Rule 3, regardless of the action taken by the [JCC].”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Willie
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.