Reports of cases argued and decided in the Supreme Court of the State of Texas, during the Galveston session, 1867, with an appendix containing the cases of the Galveston session, 1861, etc. Volume 29. Page: 75
ix, 626 p. ; 22 cm.View a full description of this book.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
1867.] PAGE V. ARNIM. 66
initial or middle letter of that name is immaterial, and
it is competent to show that he is known as well without
as with the middle name." So in the case of Kesse v.
Meade, 3 Pet. 1, a commission was issued in the name of
Richard M. Meade, the name of the defendant being
Richard W. Meade. The court says it was a clerical mistake,
and further, "it is said the law knows of only one
christian name, and there are adjudged cases strongly
.countenancing, if not fully establishing, that the entire
omission of a middle letter is not a misnomer or variance"
(see authorities quoted), and, if so, a middle letter is immaterial,
and a wrong letter may be stricken out or disregarded.
But, aside from the authorities above quoted,
and the previous argument on this point, the certificate
of the judge of the county court or chief justice before
whom the acknowledgment was taken concludes the
matter, that it is a mistake of the clerk, and not a variance,
if such it would be styled, for he certifies as follows:
"Personally came and appeared before me, G. B.
McKinstry, chief justice in and for the [66] county
aforesaid, J. C. Hoskins, oneof the witnesses to the foregoing
deed," etc. Now, is it not evident from the face of
the instrument that the witness who signed the deed is
the identical witness who proved the same for record ?
Robert L. Foard and John H. Robson, for the defendants.
The court did not err in the charge to the jury
under the facts proved on the trial. It was proper and
applicable, the defense relied on being that of an estoppel
in pais. It is laid down in 14 Mo. 482, that to establish
such, there must be, first, an admission inconsistent with
the evidence proposed to be given or the claim offered to
be set, up; second, action by the other party upon such
admission; third, an injury to him, by allowing the admission
to be disproved. 14 Mo. 482.
This admission may be either by acts or declarations,
as where one, by his words or conduct, willfully causes
another to believe the existence of a certain state of
75
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This book can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Book.
Texas. Supreme Court. Reports of cases argued and decided in the Supreme Court of the State of Texas, during the Galveston session, 1867, with an appendix containing the cases of the Galveston session, 1861, etc. Volume 29., book, 1882; St. Louis, Mo.. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth28544/m1/73/: accessed May 3, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu; .