Legal Opinion

Turfitt v. Perales

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Decided February 17, 1933No. 6664PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

HUTCHESON, Circuit Judge.

Appellant, complaining of a verdict and judgment against him in a trespass to try title suit, claims that as matter of law he proved his title clear, and should have had the instructed verdict he moved for. He assigns error to the action of the court in permitting defendant to make in the evidence c]large> a jury igs,ue on his claim that plaintiff could not recover because of the ex-istenoe 0£ a validj outstanding title.. ., „ ,, , . The record admits of no other conclusion ^ ^ Uant ig bt on both points; .... ^ . liis petition m statutory torm set his paper * J 1 *…

2Cases cited19 opinions

  1. Hooks v. BridgewaterTexas Supreme Court · 1921
  2. Holland v. NanceTexas Supreme Court · 1908
  3. House v. ReavisTexas Supreme Court · 1896
  4. Ogden & Johnson v. BosseTexas Supreme Court · 1894
  5. Kirby Lumber Company v. ConnTexas Supreme Court · 1924

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Opelousas-St. Landry Securities Co. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1933
  2. Hudson v. NorwoodCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1941
  3. Murphy v. Sun Oil Co.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1936
  4. Darling Shops, Inc. v. BrackCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1938
  5. Cannan v. CurkeetCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1936

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

Powered by the Exa API