Legal Opinion

American Surety Co. of New York v. Blaine

Court of Appeals of Texas

Decided April 29, 1925No. 3056PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

We think the contention that the cause of action alleged in the original petition was abandoned and a new cause of action set up in the amended petition on which the trial was had must be sustained. Tests by which to determine such a contention, the Supreme Court said in Lumber Co. v. Water Co., 94 Tex. 456, 61 S.W. 707, are:

"(1) Would a recovery had upon the original bar a recovery under the amended petition? (2) Would the same evidence support both of the pleadings?"

A "solitaire diamond ring" and a "solitaire diamond set in a stick pin" are not one and the same thing. They are different…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Phoenix Lumber Co. v. Houston Water Co.Texas Supreme Court · 1901
  2. Fisher v. Travelers' Insurance Co.Tennessee Supreme Court · 1911
  3. Delaware Underwriters & Westchester Fire Insurance v. BrockTexas Supreme Court · 1919
  4. Queen Insurance v. Jefferson Ice Co.Texas Supreme Court · 1885
  5. Federal Life Insurance v. BarnettIndiana Court of Appeals · 1919

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

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. Federal Surety Co. v. SmithTexas Commission of Appeals · 1931
  2. American Surety Co. of New York v. North Texas Nat. BankCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1929
  3. Ætna Casualty & Surety Co. v. AustinCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1926
  4. American Surety Co. of New York v. MartinezCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1934
  5. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Neiman-Marcus Co.Texas Commission of Appeals · 1926

7 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