TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Parker v. Campbell

J. A. Parker v. G. W. Campbell

Parker v. Campbell, 21 Tex. 763 (1858)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Texas Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
July 1, 1858
Judges
Wheeler
Citations
21 Tex. 763
Headnotes
Where a party has solemnly admitted a fact by deed under Ms hand and seal, he is estopped not only from denying the deed itself, but every fact which it recites. A continuance, properly refused, where the witness (whose absence was the ground of the application) resided remote from the county seat and a subpoena was issued for Mm only two days before the trial. An affidavit for continuance prematurely made not sufficient.
Summary
Error from Houston. Tried below before Hon. J. H. Reagan. This was a suit against certain of the sureties of one Elon A. Campbell, oh his bond as guardian of Geo. W. Campbell. The appellant set up among other defences specially, that said Elon A. Campbell was never properly appointed guardian of said Geo. W., that the County Court of Houston county had no jurisdiction over the person or property of said Geo. W., and that it had no power to grant letters of guardianship to said EIon.A., or to take bond of. There was a verdict and judgment for the defendant in error.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Wheeler

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Wheeler. J.

There is no better settled doctrine than that, where a party has solemnly admitted a fact by deed and under his hand and seal, he is estopped, not only from denying the deed itself, but every fact which it recites. (9 Wend. R. 209 ; 4 Blackf, 437.) It is, unnecessary to cite the numerous *764 cases which establish this general doctrine. The case of Borden v. Houston, decided by this Court, is decisive of the present question. (2 Tex. R. 594; and see 8 Pick. 386 ; 3 Id. 38.) The defendant was not at liberty to dispute the appointment and official character of his principal in the bond. He was estopped from denying that he was the lawful guardian of the plaintiff. The Court, therefore, did not err in sustaining exceptions to the answer.

There was no error in refusing a continuance. The witness resided remote from the county seat. Yet the subpoena was not issued until after the commencement of the Term of the Court; but two days appear to have intervened between the issuance of the subpoena and the day on which the application to continue was made. If the subpoena had been issued in time, the witness might have been in attendance. The delay should have been satisfactorily explained. “ The service of a subpoena upon a witness ought always to be made a reasonable time before trial, to enable him to put his affairs in such order that his attendance upon the Court may be as little detrimental as possible to his interest. On this principle, a summons in the morning to attend in the afternoon of the same day, has been held insufficient, though the witness lived in the same town, and very near the place of trial. ” (1 Greenl. Ev. See. 314.) Besides the affidavit appears to have been prematurely made, being three days before the trial. (Parker v. McKelvain, 17 Tex. R. 157.)

There is no error in the judgment and it is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 15 cases

View all citing references →
1884–1885: 21888–1889: 11912–1913: 11914–1915: 11924–1925: 11926–1927: 11928–1929: 11932–1933: 11952–1953: 11962–1963: 11988–1989: 12004–2005: 12008–2009: 218842026peak 1884 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Havard v. Smith13 S.W.2d 743 (Tex. App. 1929)
  2. Kuklies v. Reinert256 S.W.2d 435 (Tex. App. 1953)
  3. Willis v. Smith10 S.W. 683 (Tex. 1889)
  4. Massie v. Shields62 S.W.2d 322 (Tex. App. 1933)
  5. Martinez v. State753 S.W.2d 165 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 1988)
  6. Fikes v. Buckholts State Bank273 S.W. 957 (Tex. App. 1925)

Most recent

  1. Patton Children's Trust & Gerald Ulmer v. Billie Hamlin, Elmer Criswell, Bruce Sisk, Tony Soto, Jr., Steve Steffe and Gabriel RodriguezNo. 07-07-00488-CV (Tex. App.—Amarillo Aug. 20, 2008)
  2. Patton Children's Trust & Gerald Ulmer v. Billie Hamlin, Elmer Criswell, Bruce Sisk, Tony Soto, Jr., Steve Steffe and Gabriel RodriguezNo. 07-07-00488-CV (Tex. App.—Amarillo Aug. 20, 2008)
  3. Robert Scherer and SCS Construction Management Inc. v. Dean Angell and Sally AngellNo. 07-05-00147-CV (Tex. App.—Amarillo June 2, 2005)
  4. Martinez v. State753 S.W.2d 165 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 1988)
  5. McDaniel v. Cherry353 S.W.2d 280 (Tex. App. 1962)
  6. Kuklies v. Reinert256 S.W.2d 435 (Tex. App. 1953)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list