Skip to main content
· 11/23/1883

Raleigh & Heidenheimer Bros. v. Cook

Citations

  • 60 Tex. 438
  • 1883 Tex. LEXIS 353

Syllabus

<p>1. Practice — Statement op pacts.— The rule again announced, that where the statement of facts found in the record was approved and filed after the adjournment of the term, and no order is found in the transcript permitting it to be thus made and filed, it will be disregarded.</p> <p>2. Practice.— In the absence of a statement of facts, the supreme court will consider no assigned error based on the action of the court in giving or refusing charges, or which attack the verdict as being against law and evidence, or as excessive in the amount of damages found.</p> <p>3. Venue — Damages.—A petition contained allegations which, taken together, amounted to a charge that the defendants combined falsely to accuse him of the offense of swindling Heidenheimer Bros., and in pursuance of such combination did through one of their number, J. W. Ealeigh, make such accusation by affidavit before a magistrate of Wood county, and that this was done for the purpose of extorting money and the payment of a debt pretended to be due defendants. Held,</p> <p>(1) That while the averments were not so specific and certain as would be required in an indictment, they were sufficiently certain for the purposes of civil pleading.</p> <p>(2) The acts so charged constituted an offense against the laws of the state.</p> <p>’ (3) The offense charged was in the nature of a conspiracy, and will be deemed to have been committed where any act in pursuance of the common design was performed by any one of the conspirators, or by any other person at their instigation. The conspiracy is renewed with every act done in pursuance of the unlawful design.</p> <p>(4) The making of an affidavit against the plaintiff to secure his arrest, in pursuance of the common design, in Wood county, that county is taken to be the county in which the offense was committed, and a suit for damages for the wrong done was properly brought in that county. Pasch. Dig., art. 1422.</p> <p>4. Plea in abatement.— A plea in abatement s

Judges: Willie

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.