leading principle in Texas

1931Murrell v. Wright, 78 Tex. 519 , 15 S. W. 156 . “ ‘A leading principle in our law and system of procedure is to avoid a multiplicity of suits and to settle in one action the respective claims of parties when they are of such a nature as to admit of adjustment in that mode.’ Thomas v. Hill, Administrator, 3 Tex. 270 ; Fitzhugh v. Orton, 12 Tex. 4 .” Hudmon v. Foster (Tex. Com.

1921The Supreme Court declared at a very early date chat— “A leading principle in our law and system of procedure is to avoid a multiplicity of suits, and to settle in one action the respective claims of parties when they are of such a nature as to admit of adjustment in that mode.” Thomas v. Hill, Admr., 3 Tex. 270 ; Fitzhugh v. Orton, 12 Tex. 4 .

1931Murrell v. Wright, 78 Tex. 519 , 15 S. W. 156 . “ ‘A leading principle in our law and system of procedure is to avoid a multiplicity of suits and to settle in one action the respective claims of parties when they are of such a nature as to admit of adjustment in that mode.’ Thomas v. Hill, Administrator, 3 Tex. 270 ; Fitzhugh v. Orton, 12 Tex. 4 .” Hudmon v. Foster (Tex. Com.

1921The Supreme Court declared at a very early date chat— “A leading principle in our law and system of procedure is to avoid a multiplicity of suits, and to settle in one action the respective claims of parties when they are of such a nature as to admit of adjustment in that mode.” Thomas v. Hill, Admr., 3 Tex. 270 ; Fitzhugh v. Orton, 12 Tex. 4 .

1989There, Justice Countiss observed that the testator-spouses in each case executed a joint will “leaving some species of estate to the survivor,” and *393 “then jointly provided for the disposition of the combined estates remaining on hand at the death of the last to die.” Fisher, 597 S.W.2d at 398 .

1935Bank of Waco, supra, it was held: “That matters ex con-tractu and ex delicto may be joined where they grow out of the samé transaction, relate to the same subject-matter, and are dependent in their principal features upon the same evidence.” (Citing authorities.) Applying the above principles to the causes of action asserted in plaintiff’s petition, it seems to us that the suit is one peculiarly appropriate for adjudication in one suit in the district court, where relief in law and equity is available.

1931App.) 231 S. W. 346, 348 .

1931Murrell v. Wright, 78 Tex. 519 , 15 S. W. 156 . “ ‘A leading principle in our law and system of procedure is to avoid a multiplicity of suits and to settle in one action the respective claims of parties when they are of such a nature as to admit of adjustment in that mode.’ Thomas v. Hill, Administrator, 3 Tex. 270 ; Fitzhugh v. Orton, 12 Tex. 4 .” Hudmon v. Foster (Tex. Com.

1931Murrell v. Wright, 78 Tex. 519 , 15 S. W. 156 . “ ‘A leading principle in our law and system of procedure is to avoid a multiplicity of suits and to settle in one action the respective claims of parties when they are of such a nature as to admit of adjustment in that mode.’ Thomas v. Hill, Administrator, 3 Tex. 270 ; Fitzhugh v. Orton, 12 Tex. 4 .” Hudmon v. Foster (Tex. Com.

1925App.) 237 S. W. 238 . gection B of the Commission of Appeals, in disposing of the case in an opinion by presiding Justice Mc-Clendon, among other things, had this to say: “The leading inquiry presented for our consideration is whether it was error to charge the jury, in effect, that to overcome the presumption that the deed of settlement was not absolute, as upon its face it appeared to be, bur was affected with a parol secret trust in favor of plaintiff, the latter must establish such trust clearly and to the satisfaction of the jury.

1898The general rule is expressed by Oros well in his Work on. the law of Electricity, section 412, thus: “The leading principle as to delivery of a telegram is that the message is to be delivered to the person to whom it is addressed, and the place of address is subordinate to the person; and therefore if the person cannot be found at the street and number or other place to which the telegram is addressed, but can be found by reasonable efforts of the telegraph company in some other place, it may be negligence for the company to leave the telegram at the place of address without making further ef

1898The general rule is expressed by Oros well in his Work on. the law of Electricity, section 412, thus: “The leading principle as to delivery of a telegram is that the message is to be delivered to the person to whom it is addressed, and the place of address is subordinate to the person; and therefore if the person cannot be found at the street and number or other place to which the telegram is addressed, but can be found by reasonable efforts of the telegraph company in some other place, it may be negligence for the company to leave the telegram at the place of address without making further ef

1898The general rule is expressed by Oros well in his Work on. the law of Electricity, section 412, thus: “The leading principle as to delivery of a telegram is that the message is to be delivered to the person to whom it is addressed, and the place of address is subordinate to the person; and therefore if the person cannot be found at the street and number or other place to which the telegram is addressed, but can be found by reasonable efforts of the telegraph company in some other place, it may be negligence for the company to leave the telegram at the place of address without making further ef

1885Tyson v. Britton, 6 Tex., 224 ; Roberts v. Tarboro, 41 Tex., 252 .