Legal Opinion

Prichard v. Cowick

Court of Appeals of Texas

Decided January 30, 1956No. 6556PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MARTIN, Justice.

Mava D. Prichard and husband, Reg Prichard, hereinafter designated appellants, owned and operated the Arthur Murray School of Dancing in Amarillo, Texas. They accepted notes for dancing instruction which notes were placed for collection with Reserve Plan, Inc. of Kansas City, hereinafter referred to as Reserve Plan, Inc. Reserve Plan, Inc. would advance to appellants 50% of a note as transferred to it for collection and upon final payment of the note would retain 10% as a collection fee and would pay the balance of 40% to the appellants. Under this plan of financing, Reserve…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Benge v. ScharbauerTexas Supreme Court · 1953
  2. Murphy v. DilworthTexas Supreme Court · 1941
  3. Lane Co. v. CrumTexas Commission of Appeals · 1927
  4. Holt v. ManleyCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1940
  5. Leavell v. Lincoln County Mut. Fire Ins. Co.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1951

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Dial Temp Air Conditioning Company v. FaulhaberCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1960
  2. Andres v. BrownSupreme Court of Missouri · 1957
  3. Dial Temp Air Conditioning Company v. FaulhaberCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1960

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

Powered by the Exa API