Legal Opinion
Runnels Chevrolet Co. v. Clifton
Court of Appeals of Texas
Decided January 28, 1932No. 2175PublishedCited by 12 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtWalker, J.
This was a suit by appellees against'appellants for actual and exemplary damages for the malicious seizure and conversion of their automobile. The answer of appellants was sufficient to support their propositions of error. The trial was to a jury upon the following issues, answered as indicated.
“Special Issue No. 1
“Do you find from a preponderance of the evidence in this case that the defendants took possession of the Chevrolet automobile belonging to the plaintiffs, without the Consent of the plaintiffs? Answer this ‘yes’ or ‘no’ as you find the facts to be.” Answer: “Yes.”
*428“Special Issue No.…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Isbell v. LennoxTexas Supreme Court · 1927
- Singer Sewing Machine Co. v. RiosTexas Supreme Court · 1903
- Ford v. CouchCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1929
- Texas Auto Co. v. ClarkCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1928
- Hess v. RouseCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1929
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Walters v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 2007
- Motor Equipment Co. v. McLaughlinSupreme Court of Kansas · 1943
- Pacific Finance Corp. v. CrouchCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1951
- Westerman v. Oregon Automobile Credit Corp.Oregon Supreme Court · 1942
- Ford Motor Credit Co. v. PowersCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1981
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.