Cain v. Mack

33 Tex. 135
Texas Supreme Court·Decided July 1, 1870·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Walker, J.

We think it was competent for the plaintiff below to prove by parol the authority of W. T. Heal to sign the name [136]*136of Mrs. M. Cheney, his mother, to the note sued on; and that there is no error appearing on the record.- There was no motion in the district court for a new trial, nor does any statement of facts accompany the record. (See Hart v. Ware, 8 Tex. R. 115.)

Where there is no motion for a new trial the judgment of the court below will not he disturbed on the ground that the verdict is not supported by the evidence. The judgment below is affirmed,

Affirmed.

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

Cain v. Mack, 33 Tex. 135 (Tex. 1870).

33 Tex. 135 (Cain v. Mack) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Galbraith v. Townsend
20 S.W. 943 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1892)
Putnam v. Putnam
24 P. 320 (Arizona Supreme Court, 1890)