Morgan v. Turner

7 Citing cases

  1. Cleghon v. Boxley

    58 Tex. Civ. App. 161 (Tex. Civ. App. 1909)   Cited 3 times

    — Affidavit must show the property sought to be sequestered and its value. Rev. Stats., art. 4565; Morgan v. Turner, 4 Texas Civ. App. 192[ 4 Tex. Civ. App. 192]. The court erred in overruling defendant's application for continuance.

  2. Quanah, A. P. Ry. Co. v. Cooper

    236 S.W. 811 (Tex. Civ. App. 1922)   Cited 5 times

    13 C.J. p. 716, and authorities. What was said by the court in the case of Morgan v. Turner, 4 Tex. Civ. App. 192, 23 S.W. 287, is not necessarily opposed to this conclusion. But no objection was made to the introduction of the evidence because of lack of special pleading, and the case was fully developed and tried on the theory that the defendants, under the general denial, could show that the facts relied on by plaintiff did not impose any liability under the terms of the very contract relied on by the plaintiff itself.

  3. Williams v. Givins

    11 S.W.2d 224 (Tex. Civ. App. 1928)   Cited 13 times

    It does not "give the value of each article of the property," as required by section 3 above, and it is probably insufficient for the further reason that it does not specify the county in which the same is situated. There can be no question but what the first ground of complaint just mentioned is well taken, as may be seen from the statute itself, as well as the following authorities: Huckins v. Leitner, 4 Willson Civ.Cas.Ct.App. § 16, 14 S.W. 1016; McSpadden v. La Force (Tex.Civ.App.) 39 S.W. 163; Morgan v. Turner, 4 Tex. Civ. App. 192, 23 S.W. 284; Butts v. Lucia (Tex.Civ.App.) 153 S.W. 686; Gandy v. Cornelius (Tex.Civ.App.) 216 S.W. 467. Upon the trial the defendant resisted the jurisdiction of the trial court by a general demurrer and special exception, upon the ground that the plaintiff's petition failed to state a cause of action, in that it did not allege the value of the property upon which the chattel mortgage lien was sought to be foreclosed.

  4. Curry v. Texas Co.

    8 S.W.2d 206 (Tex. Civ. App. 1928)   Cited 18 times
    In Curry v. Texas Co., 8 S.W.2d 206 (Tex.Civ.App. — Eastland 1928, writ dism'd), Texas Company agreed to pay Curry an "in money" royalty on all gas produced from a lease.

    Judge Boyce in opinion on rehearing in Quanah, A. P. Ry. Co. v. Cooper (Tex.Civ.App.) 236 S.W. 813, expresses doubt as to the necessity of such pleadings by a defendant when the contract has been set out by plaintiff and shows ambiguity on its face. In the case of Morgan v. Turner, 4 Tex. Civ. App. 192, 23 S.W. 287, distinguished by Judge Boyce, the contract did not show an ambiguity on its face. Judge Smith, in San Antonio Machine Supply Co. v. Allen (Tex.Civ.App.) 268 S.W. 532, says:

  5. Gandy v. Cornelius

    216 S.W. 467 (Tex. Civ. App. 1919)   Cited 3 times

    This assignment is well taken, for it is nowhere stated "the value of each article of the property" as the statute plainly requires. Rev.St. 1911, art. 7095; McSpadden v. La Force, 39 S.W. 163; Morgan v. Turner, 4 Tex. Civ. App. 192, 23 S.W. 284; Caruthers v. Hadley, 115 S.W. 80; Cleghorn et al. v. Boxley et al., 58 Tex. Civ. App. 161, 123 S.W. 438; Butts v. Lucie, 153 S.W. 686. To sustain the affidavit appellee relies upon the cases of McMillan v. Moon, 18 Tex. Civ. App. 227, 44 S.W. 414, and Caruthers v. Hadley, 115 S.W. 80.

  6. City of Memphis v. Browder

    174 S.W. 982 (Tex. Civ. App. 1915)   Cited 1 times

    This argument is persuasive, even though a consideration is not necessary to support a franchise. Appellees do not allege an ambiguity on the face of the franchise, and, under the authority of Morgan v. Turner, 4 Tex. Civ. App. 192, 23 S.W. 284, we doubt if evidence was admissible to explain such an ambiguity, if any existed. However, the testimony was admitted without objection.

  7. Butts v. Lucia

    153 S.W. 686 (Tex. Civ. App. 1913)   Cited 5 times

    This is a statutory prerequisite to the issuance of the writ, and its omission from the affidavit is a fatal defect. Morgan v. Turner, 4 Tex. Civ. App. 192, 23 S.W. 284. The trial in the county court being de novo, the motion to quash could be there presented for the first time.