Case Name: James W. Spillers et al., Heirs and Legal Representatives of George Robbins, Deceased, Plaintiffs in Error, vs. Elisha Clapp, Administrator of Nathaniel Robbins, Deceased, et al., Defendants in Error
Court: Supreme Court of Texas
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1848-12
Citations: 3 Tex. 498
Docket Number: 
Parties: James W. Spillers et al., Heirs and Legal Representatives of George Robbins, Deceased, Plaintiffs in Error, vs. Elisha Clapp, Administrator of Nathaniel Robbins, Deceased, et al., Defendants in Error
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Reports
Volume: 3
Pages: 498–498

Head Matter:
James W. Spillers et al., Heirs and Legal Representatives of George Robbins, Deceased, Plaintiffs in Error, vs. Elisha Clapp, Administrator of Nathaniel Robbins, Deceased, et al., Defendants in Error
— Writ of Error from Houston County.
The doctrines in the case of the Heirs of Hunt vs. Robinson’s Heirs, decided by this court at the December term, 1847, recognized and adopted as the law of this case. [Ante, 496.]
This was a suit brought by the defendants in error (plaintiffs-in the court below) to enforce a verbal contract for the conveyance of a tract of land entered into in the year 1834, between George and Nathaniel Robbins. There was a verdict and judgment for the plaintiffs, upon which the defendants sued out this writ of error.
Gillespie and Hangooe for plaintiffs in error.
Jennings for defendants in error.

Opinion:
Mr. Justice Lipscomb
delivered the opinion of the court.
There were several grounds relied on by the plaintiffs in error to reverse the judgment. It is not, however, believed necessary to notice but one, as that is conclusive of the case. The contract on which this suit was brought was for the conveyance of land, and appears to be in contravention of the 36th article, Law No. 272, Laws of Coahuila and Texas, p. 252. This question we consider as settled in this court by the case of Hunt's Heirs vs. Robinson's Heirs [Texas Rep. vol. 1, p. 748]. That case has been considered as correctly settling the doctrine, and the consequence is, the judgment and decree of the court below .in this case is reversed, and the cause ordered to be dismissed at the costs of the complainants in the court below.