Legal Opinion

Texas Co. v. Tucker

Court of Appeals of Texas

Decided May 5, 1939No. 13882PublishedCited by 19 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

SPEER, Justice.

In a motion for rehearing filed by Texas Company and Dozier Durham, our attention has been called to a misunderstanding of the record by us, as expressed in the original opinion in this case. They are correct and we take full responsibility for the error made. The transcript contained rather lengthy amended answers by the appellants, and also second amended 'answers by each, the latter being subsequent to amended pleadings by the plaintiff. The second amended answers appeared identical with those previously filed, but, in fact, they contained an additional paragraph •essential…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Woolsey v. Panhandle Refining Co.Texas Supreme Court · 1938
  2. State Mortgage Corp. v. LudwigTexas Supreme Court · 1932
  3. Queen Insurance v. StateTexas Supreme Court · 1893
  4. Hemphill v. WatsonTexas Supreme Court · 1884
  5. R. B. Templeman & Son v. KempnerCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1920

10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by19 opinions

  1. Providence Institution for Savings v. SimsTexas Supreme Court · 1969
  2. Rubin v. AdamsCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1963
  3. Smith v. Morris and Co., Texas Court of Appeals, 13th District1985
  4. Matthews v. Rains CountyCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1947
  5. Pierce v. MaysCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1954

14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API