Skip to main content
Texas Supreme Court· 11/22/1887

State v. Rhomberg

Citations

  • 69 Tex. 212
  • 7 S.W. 195
  • 1887 Tex. LEXIS 807

Syllabus

<p>1. Continuance. — See opinion for facts under which it was held that the State was entitled to a continuance for the term on account of the absence of the depositions of one of the defendants who she had sued, and when counsel had failed to direct cross interrogatories to such defendant in time,' after informing the Attorney General that it would be done, and that the witness would attend the trial, when it was shown by the affidavit of the former Attorney General, that the testimony of the witness was material “during the, time he had charge of the cause.” It will be presumed that it remamed material up to the date of the trial, no amendment of the pleadings having been made after the term of such former Attorney General’s office had expired.</p> <p>3. Joinder op Parties and op Causes op Action. — See opinion for lengthy allegations in a petition filed by the State, in a suit brought under the provisions of the aet of 1883, known as ‘‘the Land Fraud Act,” under which it was held that the joinder of all the defendants and of all the purchasers of land in one suit, was proper, if not necessary.</p> <p>S. Parties. — In a suit brought by the State under the act of 1883, known as the “Land Fraud Act” to cancel purchases of land, all persons in whose names the purchases were made, when the charge is that many purchases were made for the benefit of one or more of the defendants, are necessary parties.</p> <p>4. Case Followed. — The decision in The State v. Snyder, 66 Texas, 687, to the effect that a tender of money received by the State from one alleged to have fraudulently purchased her land, can not be demanded as prerequisite to the right of the State to cancel the contract, in a suit brought for that purpose.</p> <p>5. Eight op Action. — In this case, the right of action is based upon the acts of 1879 and 1881, and the authority for bringing the suit, only, is derived from the aet of 1883. The suit can not be properly maintained under the last act.</p>

Judges: Gaines

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

1 case in this archive cites this case.

Cites

1 case in this archive is cited by this case.

Other cases with this name

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.