Ingle v. Bell

2 Citing cases

  1. Steves v. Smith

    49 Tex. Civ. App. 126 (Tex. Civ. App. 1908)   Cited 19 times
    In Steves v. Smith, 49 Tex. Civ. App. 126, 138, 107 S.W. 141, at page 147, it is said: "It is equally well settled that, where claimants are not in actual possession, subjecting the property to homestead use, representation amounting to fraud will estop them from setting up the claim against persons acting on such representations in ignorance of the homestead claim" — citing many authorities.

    When it appears upon the face of a judgment that a party appeared in person when the case was called for trial, and there is no direct evidence that such recital and adjudication that the person did so appear is not true, the court will not be warranted in setting aside such judgment many years after the judgment had been rendered. Ingle v. Bell, 84 Tex. 463, 464; East Texas Land Co. v. Graham, 24 Texas Civ. App. 521[ 24 Tex. Civ. App. 521], 528; Western U. Tel. Co. v. Brooks, 78 Tex. 331, 332; Laird v. Thomas, 22 Tex. 276, 280; DeWalt v. Snow, 25 Tex. 320 [ 25 Tex. 320], 321; Chester v. Walters, 30 Tex. 53 [ 30 Tex. 53], 54; Lawler v. White, 27 Tex. 250 [ 27 Tex. 250], 253; Warren v. Foust, 36 Texas Civ. App. 59[ 36 Tex. Civ. App. 59], 60; Willis v. Lewis, 28 Tex. 185 [ 28 Tex. 185], 191; Galveston, H. S. A. Ry. v. Walker, 85 S.W. Rep., 28, 31. The husband alone may control the dedication of a homestead for himself and family, and it is the duty of the court, when requested, to charge the jury that unless they find from the evidence that the husband intended the property as the homestead, they should return a verdict in favor of the defendants.

  2. McLaughlin v. Carter, Ritchie Co.

    13 Tex. Civ. App. 694 (Tex. Civ. App. 1896)   Cited 6 times

    Sayles' Civil Statutes, 1282, 1283, Act of March 20, 1893; Laws 23d. Leg., p. 31; Wilson v. Zeigler, 44 Tex. 657. As to the effect of the recital in the order appointing the receiver, that the parties entered their appearance, see Ingle v. Bell, 84 Tex. 463; 3 Willson's C.C., 382; Thompson v. Bishop, 29 Tex. 154. 5. Parties who are not in fact fighting or opposing each other in a suit, although they may appear on opposite sides, are not entitled to separate jury lists, and are not entitled to exercise separate peremptory challenges to the jury, and where it appears that opposite parties to a suit have pooled their interests, they should not be allowed six peremptory challenges each.