Skip to main content
· 11/3/1882

M. C. Lee & Co. v. Wilmerding

Citations

  • 57 Tex. 444
  • 1882 Tex. LEXIS 166

Syllabus

<p>1. Depositions — Answers to interrogatories.— So much of the deposition of a witness as is not pertinent to the interrogatories propounded, should, when properly objected to, be stricken out.</p> <p>2. Same — Practice.— Formerly such an objection might be made at the trial; but now, under the Revised Statutes, it seems that it goes to the form and manner of taking, and that notice thereof- should be given in writing before the trial commences.</p> <p>8. Leading interrogatories, how objected to—Practice.— It is questionable whether the objection to an interrogatory as leading, is not also one going to the form and manner of taking, and which should be made like other objections of that class. The hearing of Purnell v. Gandy, 46 Tex., 198, on this question, considered. (See opinion for the individual views of Associate Justice Stayton on this question.)</p> <p>4. Interrogatories — Effect of failure or refusal to answer.— The refusal of a witness to answer relevant and proper interrogatories is good ground for excluding Ms deposition, if notice of the intention to move to exclude be given before the commencement of the trial, as required by the statute.</p> <p>5. Verbal guaranty — Consideration — Partnership — Dissolution of.—A verbal guaranty made at the request of a firm to certain of its creditors to pay certain subsisting demands against the partnership, followed by payment, though made after and with notice of the dissolution of the partnership, constitutes a good cause of action against the firm.</p> <p>6. Same — Statute of frauds — Moral obligation.— Although ■ the verbal guaranty was not legally binding by reason of the statute of frauds, it constituted an obligation morally binding, and supported as between plaintiffs and defendants by a valuable consideration, and the defendants had no right to ask the guarantors to violate the obligation by refraining from payment, or interposing the defense of the statute of frauds.</p> <p>7. Partnership—Payment at reque

Judges: Stayton

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced 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.