Garrison v. King's Administrator

Citations

• 35 Tex. 183

Syllabus

<p>1. Being sued on notes by an administrator, defendants answered that the notes were given to plaintiff’s intestate in his lifetime in consideration for a certain house and lot; that the intestate had no title, and never acquired any, nor ever made defendants a deed; that in consequence thereof, the intestate and defendants agreed to cancel the contract; and that his administrator, the plaintiff, was not able to make title to the property. Held, that the answer set up a good defense, and it was error to sustain exceptions to it for insufficiency.</p> <p>2. It was not error to exclude the testimony of one of the defendants, offered for the purpose of proving the loss and contents of a receipt alleged to have been given by the plaintiff’s intestate. That fact might have been proved by a disinterested witness; but the proof of a defendant was properly rejected, under the second section of the act of May 19, 1871.</p>