Legal Opinion

Rodriguez v. Higginbotham-Bailey-Logan Co.

Texas Supreme Court

Decided March 18, 1942No. 7831PublishedCited by 28 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtChief Justice Alexander

The plaintiff sued the defendant to recover on a contract claimed to have been made by the defendant’s alleged agent. Two essential elements were necessary to sustain the plaintiff’s alleged ground of recovery. One was that the agreement had been entered into, and the other that the alleged agent had authority to bind his principal. The court submitted the first issue to the jury, and the jury found that the agreement had been entered into by the alleged agent. However, no issue was submitted, and none requested, as to whether the alleged agent had the authority to make the contract. Upon…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. McAfee v. Travis Gas Corp.Texas Supreme Court · 1941
  2. Le Master v. Fort Worth Transit Co.Texas Supreme Court · 1942
  3. Williams v. Texas Employers Ins. Ass'nCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1939
  4. Rodriguez v. Higginbotham-Bailey-Logan Co.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1940

3Cited by28 opinions

  1. Colonial Savings Ass'n v. TaylorTexas Supreme Court · 1976
  2. Hall v. HardTexas Supreme Court · 1960
  3. Barrick v. GilletteCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1945
  4. Rodriguez v. Higginbotham-Bailey-Logan Co.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1943
  5. Cannady v. Dallas Ry. & Terminal Co.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1949

23 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