Kruegel v. Daniels
Court of Appeals of Texas
Error from the 44th Judicial District, Dallas County. Tried below before Hon. E. B. Muse.
1Opinion of the Court
BAINEY, Chief Justice.
Plaintiffs in error brought his suit to recover a lot of land and for damages against defendants in error.
Defendants in error answered by general and special exceptions, not' guilty and by cross bill, seeking to enjoin plaintiffs from further prosecuting such action. The general and special demurrers of defendants to plaintiffs’ petition were sustained and judgment rendered for defendants on their cross bill. Plaintiffs bring this writ or error.
Plaintiffs in error complain of the sustaining of. defendants’ exceptions. In their petition the plaintiffs in error allege in…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Lytle v. HalffCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1889
- Marx & Kempner v. Heidenheimer Bros.Texas Supreme Court · 1885
- Wheeler v. WheelerTexas Supreme Court · 1890
- Lopez v. StateTexas Supreme Court · 1874
- City of Corsicana v. KerrCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1889
3Cited by5 opinions
- Allen v. Farm & Home Savings & Loan Ass'n of MissouriCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1933
- Kruegel v. Cockrell GrayCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1912
- Bruno v. Texas Mexican Ry. Co.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1941
- Grant v. GrantCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1916
- McFarland v. HammondTexas Supreme Court · 1915