Ridgell v. Farmers' Nat. Bank of Rockwall

3 Citing cases

  1. Williams v. Milliger

    352 S.W.2d 794 (Tex. Civ. App. 1962)   Cited 4 times

    The testimony raised an issue of fact as to whether or not the defendant directed that the payment be applied to the new debt. It is implied in support of the judgment that the court found against the defendant on this issue since the court made no specific finding on such issue and none was requested. Ridgell v. Farmers' National Bank, Tex.Civ.App., 275 S.W. 858; Andrews v. Key, 77 Tex. 35, 13 S.W. 640; Kennedy v. Kennedy, 210 S.W. 581; Tex.Civ.App., error ref. There was a fact issue as to whether or not the parties agreed that defendant would make a payment on the debt barred by the bankuptcy proceedings and thereby impliedly directed the application of the payment made to such purpose.

  2. Robertson v. Melton

    86 S.W.2d 473 (Tex. Civ. App. 1935)   Cited 1 times

    He assented to such arrangement as was offered in the letter and led Melton to believe it sufficient to delay any other effort to dispose of the land, relying on Robertson's statement, and later lost the land by foreclosure. Appellant urges that this estoppel in pais is not sufficient to take the case out of the statute of frauds, but we believe the law to be correctly stated upholding such estoppel in Keene v. Gold (Tex.Civ.App.) 27 S.W.2d 631, and Ridgell v. Farmers' Bank (Tex.Civ.App.) 275 S.W. 858, 859. Estoppel takes the issue out of the statutes against frauds to prevent frauds.

  3. Sivalls Motor Co. v. Chastain

    5 S.W.2d 185 (Tex. Civ. App. 1928)   Cited 11 times

    G., C. S. F. Ry. Co. v. Pryor (Tex.Civ.App.) 238 S.W. 1040; Jamison Gin Co. v. Measels (Tex.Civ.App.) 207 S.W. 365; Stevenson v. Barrow (Tex.Civ.App.) 265 S.W. 602; San Antonio Traction Co. v. Yost, 39 Tex. Civ. App. 551, 88 S.W. 428; Denison v. League, 16 Tex. 408; Middlebrook v. Zapp, 73 Tex. 29, 10 S.W. 732; Cooper v. Loughlin, 75 Tex. 524, 13 S.W. 37; Sorenson v. City Nat. Bank (Tex Civ. App.) 273 S.W. 638; Ridgell v. Farmers' Nat. Bank (Tex.Civ.App.) 275 S.W. 858; Roark v. Prideaux (Tex.Civ.App.) 284 S.W. 624. Appellee insists, however, that, in order to have the action of the trial court in this respect reviewed by us, it was necessary for appellant to have objected to the giving of the special issues before same were given and to have preserved the objection by a bill of exception under the provisions of R.S. 1925, art. 2185, which provides that all objections not so made and presented shall be considered as waived.