Sanford v. Nueces River Valley R. Co.

143 S.W. 329, 1912 Tex. App. LEXIS 162
Court of Appeals of Texas·Decided January 24, 1912·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

JAMES, C. J.

H. W. Sanford sued on a promissory note. The defense was failure of consideration. There was a verdict against plaintiff. The case was submitted to the jury on said issue. The assignments of error question the judgment upon the ground that the verdict was contrary to and unsupported by the evidence. In no other respect are the proceedings questioned.

This was not the position taken by appellant at the trial. On the contrary, he asked charges submitting the issue, which were given. He tried the case, and participated in its being submitted on said issue, upon the theory that there was evidence warranting its submission to the jury. The matter is not even complicated with a request for a peremptory instruction, as is usual in such case. Appellant is estopped to claim, on appeal, that the testimony is lacking in sufficiency to sustain the verdict. Poindexter v. Receivers of Kirby Lumber Co., 101 Tex. 323, 107 S. W. 42.

Affirmed.

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

Sanford v. Nueces River Valley R. Co., 143 S.W. 329, 1912 Tex. App. LEXIS 162 (Tex. Ct. App. 1912).

143 S.W. 329 (Sanford v. Nueces River Valley R. Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Stark v. R. B. George MacHinery Co.
41 S.W.2d 1023 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1931)
Lake v. Jones Lumber Co.
233 S.W. 1011 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1921)
Masterson v. Turnley
220 S.W. 428 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1920)
Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Williams
196 S.W. 230 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1917)