Legal Opinion

Hutchings v. Bayer

Court of Appeals of Texas

Decided November 16, 1956No. 15157PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

YOUNG, Justice.

The suit of Bayer against Hutchings and wife was upon notes, checks and drafts of various dates, on their face in the aggregate of some $18,880, which defendants denied, pleading limitation. Plaintiff then pled the provisions of Art. 5539, V.A.C.S., entitled “Acknowledgment must be in writing”, in connection with correspondence between the parties; and upon trial to the court, judgment was rendered against A. W. Hutchings only, totaling $23,602.83 principal, interest and attorney’s fees, with result of this appeal. No findings of fact or conclusions of law were requested of,…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Howard Hume, Administrators, Etc. v. WindomTexas Supreme Court · 1894
  2. Cotulla v. UrbahnTexas Supreme Court · 1911
  3. Martindale Mortg. Co. v. CrowCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1941
  4. Evans v. EvansCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1923
  5. Schumacher Oil Works v. KeislerCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1930

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. House of Falcon, Inc. v. GonzalezCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1979
  2. Brian DeRoeck, Melinda Young, and Kathryn Boykin, as Co-Trustees of the Walter A. DeRoeck QTIP Trust, Assignee of Texas Capital Bank National Association v. DHM Ventures, LLC James W. Moritz And Nathan W. Halsey, Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin)2019
  3. Perdido Properties LLC, on Behalf of and as Attorney-In-Fact for Paul H. Bremer, Jr. and Leon C. Smitherman, Jr. v. Devon Energy Production Company, L.P., Texas Court of Appeals, 11th District (Eastland)2023

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

Powered by the Exa API