Mills v. Gooding
This text of 8 Tex. 152 (Mills v. Gooding) 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.
Opinion
The writ of error ought to have been returned by the plain-tiffin error to the term succeeding' after it was prayed, and on failure the defendant could then have filed the record and aslced its affirmance, but could not at a subsequent term. It must be refused and the cause dismissed at the cost of the party filing the record. Note. — This same question was presented and decided at Austin, December Term, 1849, in a case from Galveston, wlien John B. Jones, esq., attorney for the defendant in error, asked the affirmance of a judgment under similar circumstances, and his motion was overruled by the court. There was no opinion written out and filed, I believe, by the court.
Motion overruled.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
8 Tex. 152, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mills-v-gooding-tex-1852.