Hays v. Porter
27 Tex. 92
Opinion
It is a fatal objection to the plaintiff’s action that she does not appear to have been in possession of the premises, nor does it appear that the homestead had been set apart to her by the court. It seems that her tenant was in possession. If his possession was invaded it was for him, and not the plaintiff, to bi’ing the suit. The verdict was contrary to the evidence, and a new trial should have been granted.
The judgment is reversed and the case remanded.
Reversed and remanded.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Hays v. Porter, 27 Tex. 92 (Tex. 1863).
27 Tex. 92 (Hays v. Porter) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
County Board of School Trustees of Young County v. Bullock Common School Dist. No. 12
37 S.W.2d 829 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1931)
Cty. Bd., Etc. v. Bullock Common Sch.
37 S.W.2d 829 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1931)
H. L. Null & Co. v. J. S. Garlington & Co.
242 S.W. 507 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1922)
Hertzberg v. Beisenbach
64 Tex. 262 (Texas Supreme Court, 1885)