Arnold v. Kreissler

22 Tex. 580
Texas Supreme Court·Decided July 1, 1858·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Wheeler, Ch. J.

There is no error in the judgment. It was, doubtless, competent for the court to permit the defendant to supply the affidavit to the answer, now for then, if satisfied that the answer had been sworn to at the proper time; and if not, it was competent to allow the amendment, which was an answer to the motion to reinstate. At most, the dissolution of the injunction, at the time, was a mere irregularity, not affecting the merits, or the correctness of the judgment. It must have been dissolved upon the return of the verdict, and the judgment would have been the same.

Judgment affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Arnold v. Kreissler, 22 Tex. 580 (Tex. 1858).

22 Tex. 580 (Arnold v. Kreissler) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Strickland v. Wofford
156 S.W. 916 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1913)
Gray & Wallace v. Steedman Bros.
63 Tex. 95 (Texas Supreme Court, 1885)
Nettles v. State
4 Tex. Ct. App. 337 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1878)