Legal Opinion
Dato v. George W. Armstrong & Co.
Texas Commission of Appeals
Decided April 23, 1924No. 439-3917PublishedCited by 7 opinions
Error to Court of Civil Appeals of Second Supreme Judicial District. Action by Ed. Dato against Geo. W. Armstrong & Co., Inc. Judgment for defendant was affirmed by the Court of Civil Appeals (245 S. W. 955), and plaintiff brings error.
1Opinion of the CourtHamilton, J.
In order to show the disposition made of / the case by the Court of Civil Appeals and the grounds thereof, we quote from the opinion of that court, preferring to sacrifice brevity for certainty:
“George W. Armstrong & Co., Incorporated, owns and operates an iron foundry in the city of Port Worth. Ed Dato, who was a welder by trade, was employed by Pred Barney, superintendent of the oil well supply department of the company, to do some repairs on a gear wheel in the oil well supply department; such repair work requiring the services of a welder. A gas generator was used in making sueh repairs,…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Powell v. Construction Co.Tennessee Supreme Court · 1890
- Cunningham v. International RailroadTexas Supreme Court · 1879
- Byrne v. Kansas City, Ft. S. & M. R.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1894
- Cunningham & Ellis v. MooreTexas Supreme Court · 1881
- Dato v. George W. Armstrong Co.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1922
3Cited by7 opinions
- Iley v. HughesTexas Supreme Court · 1958
- Blanton v. E. & L. Transport Co.Texas Supreme Court · 1948
- Tanner v. DrakeCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1932
- Jaco v. W. A. Nash Co.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1925
- Dixon v. RobinsonCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1925
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.