Ferguson v. Wood

Texas Supreme Court

Ferguson v. Wood

23 Tex. 177

CourtTexas Supreme Court

DecidedJuly 1, 1859

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 23 Tex. 177 (Ferguson v. Wood) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Texas Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ferguson v. Wood, 23 Tex. 177 (Tex. 1859).

Pincite

Opinion

Bell, J.

We are of opinion that the plea of Andrew F. Smith, one of the defendants in the court below, was not a good plea of non est factum, because it did not deny the execution of the note sued on. And if the plea could be held good as a plea in abatement, it came too late after an answer to the merits. There was, therefore, no error in the judgment of the court below, sustaining the exceptions to the plea. The judgment of the court below is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Bell, J.

We are of opinion that the plea of Andrew F. Smith, one of the defendants in the court below, was not a good plea of non est factum, because it did not deny the execution of the note sued on. And if the plea could be held good as a plea in abatement, it came too late after an answer to the merits. There was, therefore, no error in the judgment of the court below, sustaining the exceptions to the plea. The judgment of the court below is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

23 Tex. 177, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ferguson-v-wood-tex-1859.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack