Ham v. Taylor
22 Tex. 225
Opinion
There was manifestly no error in overruling the motion for a new trial. There can he no just pretense that the damages were excessive. 1STor will a new trial he granted, on the ground of newly discovered evidence, which, .at most, could he received only in mitigation of damages. Judgment affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Ham v. Taylor, 22 Tex. 225 (Tex. 1858).
22 Tex. 225 (Ham v. Taylor) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Jordan v. New Amsterdam Casualty Company
353 S.W.2d 256 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1961)
Blaugrund v. Gish
179 S.W.2d 257 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1943)
Galveston, H. & S. A. Ry. Co. v. Waldo
77 S.W.2d 326 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1934)
Lowry v. Indianapolis Traction & Terminal Co.
126 N.E. 223 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1920)
Missouri, K. T. Ry. of Texas v. Dellmon
171 S.W. 799 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1914)
Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Co. v. Gist
73 S.W. 857 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1903)
Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. Brown
40 S.W. 608 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1897)
Burlingame v. Cowee
12 A. 234 (Supreme Court of Rhode Island, 1887)
Dexter v. Handy
13 R.I. 474 (Supreme Court of Rhode Island, 1881)