Foster v. Martin

20 Tex. 118
CourtTexas Supreme Court
DecidedJuly 1, 1857
StatusPublished
Cited by30 cases

This text of 20 Tex. 118 (Foster v. Martin) 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
Foster v. Martin, 20 Tex. 118 (Tex. 1857).

Opinion

Wheeler, J.

The motion to set aside the judgment was in the nature of a motion for a new trial. To entitle the defendant to have the judgment set aside, as a matter of legal right, he should have brought his application substantially within the rules governing the granting of new trials. He should have made his application within the time prescribed, or shown some sufficient excuse for his neglect. His application should have shown a sufficient excuse for his failure to appear and make his defence to the action within the time allowed for pleading, and also that he had a meritorious defence. The application is deficient in all these particulars. It was not filed in time; (Hart. Dig. Art. 766;) it states no sufficient excuse for his failure to make his defence; (Wright v. Thomas, 6 Tex. R. 420;) nor does it disclose merits. It is not enough to say that the defendant has a good legal defence. That is a matter to be judged of by the Court; and it should appear in what the defence consists, in order that the Court may judge of its sufficiency. The application is to be determined upon equitable principles, and the Court may well refuse it when asked to let in a mere legal defence, not founded in equity and justice. (13 Tex. R. 275.) There is no error in the judgment, and it is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Related

Ritter v. Wiggins
756 S.W.2d 861 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1988)
Aguirre v. State
416 S.W.2d 406 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1967)
Leibowitz v. San Juan State Bank
409 S.W.2d 586 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1966)
Ivy v. Carrell
407 S.W.2d 212 (Texas Supreme Court, 1966)
Commercial Credit Corp. v. Smith
187 S.W.2d 363 (Texas Supreme Court, 1945)
City of Fort Worth v. Gause
101 S.W.2d 221 (Texas Supreme Court, 1937)
City of Fort Worth v. Gause
101 S.W.2d 221 (Texas Commission of Appeals, 1937)
Fowzer v. Huey & Philp Hardware Co.
99 S.W.2d 1100 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1936)
St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. v. Earnest
293 S.W. 677 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1927)
Welsch v. Keeton
287 S.W. 692 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1926)
Mutual Oil Consolidated v. Beavers
272 S.W. 507 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1925)
Caldwell Oil Co. v. Hickman
270 S.W. 214 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1925)
Lawther Grain Co. v. Winniford
249 S.W. 195 (Texas Commission of Appeals, 1923)
Strickland v. Baugh
169 S.W. 181 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1914)
Gillaspie v. City of Huntsville
151 S.W. 1114 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1912)
Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Skinner
128 S.W. 715 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1910)
Scottish Union Insurance v. Tomkies & Co.
66 S.W. 1109 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1902)
Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. Rowland
38 S.W. 756 (Texas Supreme Court, 1897)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
20 Tex. 118, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/foster-v-martin-tex-1857.