Marlin's Heirs v. Stockbridge

14 Tex. 165
Texas Supreme Court·Decided July 1, 1855·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Wheeler, J.

The objection that the names of but eleven jurors are recited in the entry of the judgment, is entitled to no weight. It doubtless was a mere clerical omission. (1 Tex. R. 638.) But if not, the parties might waive the right to a trial by a jury of twelve men ; and in a civil case especially, after a trial, and when the objection is first made in this Court, they ought to be held to have done so.

The questions presented by the record and in argument, upon the validity of the appellee’s title, have been so fully disposed of and settled by repeated decisions of the Court in other cases, as to render their further consideration and discussion in this case unnecessary. (Hancock v. McKinney, 7 Tex. R. 384; Murchison v. Hall, 10 Tex. R. 461; Jenkins v. Chambers, 9 Tex. R. 167; Bryan v. Jackson, 11 Tex. R. 391; Scott & Solomon v. Maynard and wife, Dallam, 548.) Upon the au[166] thority of those cases, and the principles which they maintain applied to the same questions in this case, the judgment must be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Marlin's Heirs v. Stockbridge, 14 Tex. 165 (Tex. 1855).

14 Tex. 165 (Marlin's Heirs v. Stockbridge) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Morton v. State
3 Tex. Ct. App. 510 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1878)