Davenport v. Lackie, 8 Tex. 351 (Tex. 1852). · Go Syfert
Search
Davenport v. Lackie, 8 Tex. 351 (Tex. 1852). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
27 citation events (6 in the last 25 years) across 6 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: in Re: Thomas Lytle and Ellen Lytle (texapp, 2015-10-09)
Treatment trajectory · 1914 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1914 1970 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) in Re: Thomas Lytle and Ellen Lytle
Tex. App. · 2015 · confidence medium
As a practical matter, all Inc., 601 S.W.2d 183, 185 (Tex.Civ.App.- points challenge the authority of the trial Dallas 1980, writ ref'd n.r.e.) (citing Drake court to dismiss a suit for declaratory judg- v. Brander, 8 Tex. 351, 857 (1852)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Space Master International, Inc. v. Porta-Kamp Manufacturing Co.
Tex. App. · 1990 · confidence medium
Henson, Inc., 601 S.W.2d 183, 185 (Tex.Civ.App.—Dallas 1980, writ ref’d n.r.e.) (citing Drake v. Brander, 8 Tex. 351, 357 (1852)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Safeco Insurance Co. of America v. J. L. Henson, Inc.
Tex. App. · 1980 · confidence medium
Drake v. Brander, 8 Tex. 351, 357 (1852); Badgett v. Erspan, 476 S.W.2d 381, 382 (Tex.Civ.App. —1972, no writ).
discussed Cited "see" John S. Stritzinger v. Christiana Trust, a Division of Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB
Tex. App. · 2016 · signal: accord · confidence high
A New York case offers an explanation for the disfavor of dismissals on this ground in an " 7See id. 11 See Lindsay v. Lamed, 17 Mass. 190 , 190 (1821) (denying "abatement," apparently meaning dismissal); accord Drake v. Brander, 8 Tex. 351 , 357 (1852). 35817 F. 627 , 628 (D.N.H. 1883) (denying "abatement" or dismissal) 359 1d. 36 Mexican Cent.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Davenport
v.
Lackie and another
Texas Supreme Court.
Jul 1, 1852.
8 Tex. 351
C. M. Adams, for appellant, W. P. Sill, for appellees.
Lipscomb.
Cited by 2 opinions  |  Published
Lipscomb, J.

In this case the 1st, 2d, 3d, and 6th errors assigned are to admissibility of evidence on the trial. It is a sufficient answer to say that no objection was taken in the court below to the admissibility of the evidence, and it cannot now be heard.

The fourth assignment is, that the court erred in refusing the defendant’s motion in the court below for a new trial.

This court is not prepared to say that the verdict was contrary to the evidence ; on the contrary, it seems to be well sustained by it. The judgment is Affirmed, with ten per cent, damages for delay.

Affirmed with damages.