Legal Opinion

Zapp v. Michaelis

Texas Supreme Court

Decided February 7, 1882No. Case No. 1441PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Gould, Chief Justice.

— The motion to dismiss, filed on the fifth day of the assignment, presents three objections to the appeal bond.

*3961st. It is claimed that the judgment is for the recovery of land, and that the bond should have been conditioned for the payment of cost. R. S., art. 1405.

2d. It is claimed that the bond is not properly conditioned, under art. 1404, in that it fails to bind appellant to perform the sentence, judgment and decree of the supreme court.

3d. The bond, it is said, fails to describe the judgment.

The judgment was, that plaintiff Michaelis recover of defendant Zapp a…

2Cited by10 opinions

  1. Clark v. BrileyCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1916
  2. Earl v. MundyCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1921
  3. Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Co. v. MostyCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1894
  4. White v. HarrisTexas Supreme Court · 1892
  5. Dowling v. BuckleyCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1906

5 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