Case law

Kauffman & Runge v. Brown

83 Tex. 41 · Texas Supreme Court · Jan 19, 1892

Huffman v. Mulkey, 78 Texas, 562 . … Gregg v. English, 38 Texas, 140 .

Brown v. Hancock

13 Tex. 21 · Texas Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1854

(Burleson v. Henderson, 4 Tex. R. 49.) … The writ of error in this case was prosecuted by the defendant Brown alone. His co-defendant did not join, and is not, therefore, a party before the Court upon this writ of error.

Miller v. Brown

23 Tex. 440 · Texas Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1859

Brown v. Johnson

117 Tex. 199 · Texas Supreme Court · Nov 30, 1927

From the certificate it may be surmised that the appellee Johnson and the appellant Brown entered into a verbal contract of some nature, under which Brown was to grow crops during the year 1925 upon certain lands held by … of the respective parties to the suit and various other witnesses, but nowhere sets out a finding of fact by the court as to what the terms of the contract were, or as to what rights, with respect to the land, accrued to Brown

Marx v. Brown & Co.

42 Tex. 111 · Texas Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1874

(Ramsey v. McCauley, 9 Tex., 108 .) … (Grier v. Powell, 14 Tex., 318 .)

Brown v. Rentfro

1 Tex. L. R. 921 · Texas Supreme Court · Mar 15, 1883

Brown v. Terrell

100 Tex. 309 · Texas Supreme Court · Jan 30, 1907

Geiselman v. Brown

33 Tex. 323 · Texas Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1870

The plaintiffs purchased certain six slaves from the defendant, Brown, on the third day .of December, 1862, and ■executed .to him their promissory note for §5000, payable four years after date, with ten per cent, interest … To these defenses the defendant® Brown, demurred', and the court sustained the demurrer, striking out all the answers ; and, without further evidence than the note, instructed the jury to find' for Brown.

Lancaster v. Brown

20 Tex. 154 · Texas Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1857

(Rowley v. Stoddard, 7 Johns. R. 207.) Enough does not appear to enable the Court to determine that the release operated a discharge of the judgment and mortgage. The judgment is affirmed. Judgment affirmed.

Wooldridge v. Brown

1 Tex. 478 · Texas Supreme Court · Dec 15, 1846

State v. Brown

35 Tex. 357 · Texas Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1872

Burrow v. Brown

2 Tex. L. R. 339 · Texas Supreme Court · Oct 15, 1883

Moore v. Brown

15 Tex. 129 · Texas Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1855

This was a suit by appellees, Brown and wife, (who were plaintiffs below,) to set aside a deed executed by them in favor of the defendant, James W.

Brown v. Dunn

1 Tex. L. R. 789 · Texas Supreme Court · Jan 15, 1883

As to the second point: Although it was proved Brown owned a note of the description mentioned in his petition, signed J. S, Burlesou, that did not amount to proof that Burleson executed *791 and delivered it to him. … This rule was in force in the ease of Erskine v. Wilson, 20 Tex., 80 , decided under the law of 1846, Hartley’s Digest, Are. 741.

Condict v. Brown

21 Tex. 421 · Texas Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1858

(Mitchell v. Zimmerman, 4 Tex. 79 , and authorities therein cited.) … The object of Brown in giving this notice was to establish the identity of the land as set out in his petition, in order to obtain a decree of sale on his vendor’s lien.

King & Fordtran v. Brown

80 Tex. 276 · Texas Supreme Court · Mar 17, 1891

Byler v. Johnson, 45 Texas, 509 ; Preston v. Breedlove, 45 Texas, 47 ; Morrow v. Morgan, 48 Texas, 304 ; Monroe v. Buchanan, 27 Texas, 242 ; Silliman v. Gammage, 55 Texas, 365 ; Railway v. … Beck v. Tarrant, 61 Texas, 403 . The case of Morrow v. Morgan, 48 Texas, 308 , was upon a state of facts very similar to the one now before us.

Brown v. Thompson & Ohmstede

79 Tex. 58 · Texas Supreme Court · Dec 9, 1890

Brown and John M. Cole. … Paper, sec. 168; *62 Big. on Bills and Notes, 498; Swift v. Tyson, 16 Pet., 1 ; Railway v. National Bank, 102 U. S., 28 . The note held by plaintiffs was entitled to registration under our laws.

Allen v. Brown

11 Tex. 520 · Texas Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1854

Parker v. Brown & Ricketts

80 Tex. 555 · Texas Supreme Court · Apr 21, 1891

To recover the land he brought this action against Brown and Ricketts, who bought the land from the State under the Act of April 1, 1887, and have complied with all the requirements of that law. Gen. Laws 1887, p. 83.

Brown v. Powell

515 S.W.2d 901 · Texas Supreme Court · Nov 13, 1974

Forgus v. Hodnett, Tex.Sup., 405 S.W.2d 337 . The application for writ of error is Refused, No Reversible Error.