Case ID: tex_115/html/0489-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam :", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

C. J. Haugen et al. v. C. A. Johnson et al.
    Application No. 14668.
    Decided May 12, 1926.
    (283 S. W., 480).
    1. —Supreme Court — Jurisdiction—Conflict in Rulings.
    Conflict of previous decisions with a ruling complained of will not support the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to grant writ of error if the ruling was not necessary to the decision, as where, irrespective of its correctness, the case was, on other grounds, correctly decided. (P. 489).
    2. - — Case Approved — Limitation—Vendor and Purchaser — Adverse Possession — Forfeiture.
    Haugen v. Johnson, 282 S. W., 1116, approved. (P. 489).
    Application for writ of error to the Court of Civil Appeals for the First District, in an appeal from Jackson County.
    C. J. Haugen and others appealed from judgment on an instructed verdict against them iri a suit brought by Johnson and another. The judgment being affirmed (282 S. W., 1115) they applied for a writ of error, complaining, among other rulings, of one on the admission of testimony of a party as against heirs of a decedent and asserting jurisdiction on the ground of its conflict with numerous previous decisions. A memorandum opinion per curiam gives the ground on which the application was dismissed. The opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals, approval of rulings therein being made the ground of dismissal of the application by the Supreme Court, is published herewith.
    
      Ross & Sample, for petitioners.
   BY SUPREME COURT.

Per Curiam :

The judgment of the trial court was correctly affirmed regardless of whether the testimony of C. A. Johnson was prohibited by Article 8690 of the Revised Statutes. The application for writ of error will therefore be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.