Frankenstein v. Rushmore Gowdy
Court of Appeals of Texas
Appeal from District Court, Bexar County; 5. G. Tayloe, Judge. Action by Rushmore & Gowdy against L. Frankenstein and another. From an adverse judgment, the named defendant appeals.
1Opinion of the CourtMoursund, J.
Rushmore & Gowdy sued L. Frankenstein and F. A. Houck upon a street paving certificate issued by the city of San Antonio; the same being based upon a street paving assessment levied by such city under the provisions of chapter 11 of title 22 of the Revised Statutes of 1911.
•Houck disclaimed, and Frankenstein in his answer attacked the validity of' the statute upon which the assessment was based, and also the validity of the procedure ordinance' on which the assessment was based.
Judgment was rendered dismissing Houck and in favor of plaintiffs for the principal, interest, and attorney’s fees…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Dean v. State Ex Rel. BaileyTexas Supreme Court · 1895
- Riley v. Town of TrentonCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1916
- City of San Antonio v. SpearsCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1918
- Carwile v. ChildressCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1919
3Cited by8 opinions
- Elmendorf v. City of San AntonioCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1920
- Huff v. City of Wichita FallsTexas Supreme Court · 1932
- Sullivan v. Roach-Manigan Paving Co. of TexasCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1920
- Board of Equalization v. McDonaldTexas Supreme Court · 1939
- Keller v. Western Paving Co.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1920
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.