Marshall v. Taylor
Cases that cite this one
23 later published cases cite this decision.
- Olloqui v. Duran (Tex. App. 1933)
- Williams v. Givins (Tex. App. 1928)
- Davis v. First Nat. Bank of El Paso (Tex. App. 1923)
- Ball v. Beaty (Tex. App. 1917)
- Bishop & Babcock Sales Co. v. Haley (Tex. App. 1938)
- Cleckler v. American Motors Finance Co. (Tex. App. 1930)
- Butts v. Hudgins (Tex. App. 1923)
- Myers v. F. Dodson Son (Tex. App. 1923)
- Koontz v. Savely (Tex. App. 1921)
- People's Ice Co. v. Phariss (Tex. App. 1918)
- Manire v. Wilkinson (Tex. App. 1911)
- W. R. Kelley & Co. v. J. E. Stevens & Sons (Tex. App. 1911)
- Texas & New Orleans Ry. Co. v. Rucker (Tex. App. 1905)
- Austin Real Estate & Abstract Co. v. Bahn (Tex. 1895)
- Lawson v. Lynch (Tex. App. 1895)
- Munroe v. Schwartz (Tex. App. 1890)
- Cotulla v. Thomas Goggan & Bros. (Tex. 1890)
- Smith v. Giles & Sheppard (Tex. 1886)
- Dwyer v. Bassett & Bassett (Tex. 1885)
- Hillebrand v. McMahan (Tex. 1883)
- Texas & St. Louis R. R. v. Allen & Humphreys (Tex. App. 1882)
- Heard v. McKinney (Tex. Comm'n App. 1880)
- Lane v. Howard (Tex. 1858)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
We are of opinion that the court did not err in overruling tlie exceptions to its jurisdiction. The matter in controversy was not only the debt, but the security given for its payment. The litigation comprehended, as well the subject-matter of the mortgage, as the debt; and that was alleged to be of value sufficient to give jurisdiction to tlie District Court. (Tarbox v. Kennan, 3 Tex. R., 7.)
We are of opinion that the judgment be affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.