Rainbolt v. March

Citations

• 52 Tex. 246

Syllabus

<p>1. Intervention—Evidence—Practice.—One who intervenes in a cause must accept the case as to all previous orders made and papers filed, including depositions as they appear at the time of intervening. He cannot object to depositions already taken on the ground that he had no opportunity to propound cross-interrogatories. But it would seem that lie would not be precluded from taking action in time to secure answers to cross-interrogatories propounded by him to a witness who liad been examined before his intervention.</p> <p>2. Intbrvenor—Practice.—An intervener is not, on appeal, entitled to a reversal of a judgment in favor of an original party to the suit, which could not operate to his injury, when the party against whom the judgment was rendered had neither apjiealed nor assigned errors.</p> <p>3. Description of land.—A bond described land as follows, viz.: “‘Two hundred acres of land, it being a part of the tract which I bought of Charles Vinzent, lying about one mile east of Mount Enterprise ; said two hundred acres to be run off' of the south end of said tract next, to John Salmon’s, and extending across said south cud :” 'Held, That the bond was not on its face void for insufficient description, as the land might be identified by the aid of extrinsic evidence.</p> <p>4. Practice. — A mere preponderance of evidence will not authorize the reversal of a judgment, when the testimony was detailed by witnesses who appeared and testified before the lower court.</p>