Contreras v. Haynes

Citations

• 61 Tex. 103
• 1884 Tex. LEXIS 54

Syllabus

<p>1. Practice— Surprise.— The action of the court below in-refusing a continuance on the ground of surprise at the contents of an amended pleading will not be revised when no exception to the ruling is saved.</p> <p>3. Same.— There was no error in the refusal of a court to permit a defendant to file as a trial amendment an original answer which had been previously abandoned.</p> <p>3. Same. — It was not intended by the rules that a trial amendment should be made to include pleadings which were not demanded by the rulings of the court upon exceptions filed to other pleadings. A trial amendment comes too late after the parties have entered upon the trial; when it is offered after a jury is partially impaneled, it should not be allowed.</p> <p>4. Same.— Amotion to set aside a judgment on account of surprise must not only show that the party has a meritorious cause of action or defense, but he must set forth under oath, not in general terms, but specifically, the facts from which his meritorious cause of action or defense results. Following Montgomery v. Carlton, 56 Tex., 431.</p> <p>5'. Tenant in common.— It is not necessary, that tenants in common should join in ail action to recover land from a trespasser. Either may maintain the action for the recovery of the entire tract.</p>