Stayton, Associate Justice.— The court did not err in sustaining the exception to so much of defendant’s answer as set up that the *366 note and other indebtedness which the appellee claimed to have paid as surety for the defendant McCamant was based upon a “ gambling transaction ” by the defendant in cotton futures. The answer in this respect does not…
Read the full opinion (source) ↗
Lexace provides legal information, not legal advice, and no attorney–client relationship is created. Citation figures are counts of later citing opinions in our corpus and may be incomplete; always read and Shepardize the full opinion before relying on it.