Harris v. Williams

4 Tex. 170
CourtTexas Supreme Court
DecidedDecember 15, 1849
StatusPublished

This text of 4 Tex. 170 (Harris v. Williams) 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
Harris v. Williams, 4 Tex. 170 (Tex. 1849).

Opinion

Wheeler, J.

Where a party seeks the enforcement of so rigorous a rule as the affirmance of a judgment without reference to the merits, his application ought certainly to receive no favor beyond what the rule of the law may seem peremptorily to demand. lie ought to be held to an exact compliance with tiie law in every particular. lie demands the enforcement of the rigid rule, regardless of the right and justice of the case, and he cannot complain if the same principle which lie invokes is applied to his own case. lie ought himself to be held to strict compliance with the very letter of the law which he seeks to enforce.

Such a compliance is not shown in the present case. There is not the in-dorsement upon the transcript required by the statute. Wo are of opinion, therefore, that the motion to affirm be refused, and that the writ of error be dismissed, at the costs of the defendant in error.

Ordered accordingly.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
4 Tex. 170, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harris-v-williams-tex-1849.