Miller v. Roberts

18 Tex. 16
CourtTexas Supreme Court
DecidedJuly 1, 1856
StatusPublished
Cited by25 cases

This text of 18 Tex. 16 (Miller v. Roberts) 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
Miller v. Roberts, 18 Tex. 16 (Tex. 1856).

Opinion

Wheeler, J.

The contract, set out in the petition, was not a contract for the sale of lands. There was no land, in particular, which was the subject of the contract. It was a contract for the acquisition, of land in which, at the time, there was not any individual proprietorship. It was analagous to the case of one man furnishing another with funds to purchase land for him, or them jointly. Such a contract creates a trust, which is not within the statue of frauds. It was no more a contract for the sale of lands, than an agreement to locate land certificates and procure patents for a part of the land» when obtained; which is not within the statute of frauds. (Watkins v. Gilherson, 10 Tex. R. 340.) Nor was the contract contrary to public policy. A contract, not in itself immoral, nor in contravention of any law, by which the State acquires a citizen, can not be contrary to its policy.

We are of opinion that the petition discloses a valid and binding contract, upon which the plaintiff is entitled to maintain his action : and that the Court therefore erred in sustaining the demurrer to the petition; for which the judgment must be reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings.

Eeversed and remanded.

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

Related

John Hawkins v. Angela Myers
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2015
In Re Woodstone Ltd. Partnership
133 B.R. 678 (E.D. New York, 1991)
Evans v. General Insurance Company of America
390 S.W.2d 818 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1965)
Mid-Continent Supply Co. v. Conway
240 S.W.2d 796 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1951)
Newton v. Gardner
225 S.W.2d 598 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1949)
Cockburn v. O'MEARA
141 F.2d 779 (Fifth Circuit, 1944)
Binning v. Miller, Water Division Superintendent
102 P.2d 64 (Wyoming Supreme Court, 1940)
Montgomery v. City of Alamo Heights
8 S.W.2d 258 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1928)
Anders v. Johnson
284 S.W. 1057 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1926)
Holland v. W. C. Belcher Land Mortgage Co.
248 S.W. 803 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1922)
C. C. Slaughter Cattle Co. v. Potter County
235 S.W. 295 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1921)
Clark v. Altizer
145 S.W. 1041 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1912)
Williams v. Finley
90 S.W. 1087 (Texas Supreme Court, 1906)
W. M. W. N.W. Ry. Co. v. Wood
30 S.W. 859 (Texas Supreme Court, 1895)
Reed v. Howard
9 S.W. 109 (Texas Supreme Court, 1888)
Sprague v. Haines
4 S.W. 371 (Texas Supreme Court, 1887)
Murphy v. S. W. Service
2 Wilson 655 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1885)
Anderson v. Powers
59 Tex. 213 (Texas Supreme Court, 1883)
Hunt v. Elliott
80 Ind. 245 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1881)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
18 Tex. 16, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/miller-v-roberts-tex-1856.