Cowan v. Ross
28 Tex. 227
Opinion
—It was competent for the court, on motion and notice to the plaintiff in error, to amend the entry of a previous term of the court, so that the action of the court shall truly appear by the record. This is believed to have been settled in the case of Burnett v. The State, 14 Tex., 456.. It is there said: “ A record so amended 'stands as if it had never been defective, or as if the entries had been made at the proper term.”
No error is perceived in the record as it now appears in this court, and the judgment is
Aeeirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cowan v. Ross, 28 Tex. 227 (Tex. 1866).
28 Tex. 227 (Cowan v. Ross) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion
Texas Attorney General Reports, 1961
Mills v. Moore
5 S.W.2d 263 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1928)
Lutcher v. Fuller
200 S.W. 553 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1918)
Orient Land Co. v. Reeder
173 S.W. 939 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1915)
Thompson v. Field
164 S.W. 1115 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1914)
Wichita Valley Railway Co. v. Peery
31 S.W. 619 (Texas Supreme Court, 1895)
Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. Vieno
26 S.W. 230 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1894)
Texas Elevator & Compress Co. v. Mitchell
14 S.W. 275 (Texas Supreme Court, 1890)
Kendall v. Mather
48 Tex. 585 (Texas Supreme Court, 1878)
Nettles v. State
4 Tex. Ct. App. 337 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1878)