Legal Opinion
Martin, Wise & Fitzhugh v. Johnson
Court of Appeals of Texas
Decided November 16, 1895No. 817PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
FINLEY, Associate Justice.
Appellants make the following statement of the nature of this suit which is accepted as substantially correct by appellee:
Appellee originally brought three suits, one against each of appellants, claiming damages from each of them for substantially the same cause set out in his fourth amended original petition. They were instituted in March, 1887. Subsequently (April 18, 1890), by an order made in the cause against Martin, Wise & Eitzhugh, both of the other causes were consolidated with it.
On September 4, 1893, plaintiff (appellee) filed his fourth amended original…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- In Re KemmlerSupreme Court of the United States · 1890
- Barron Ex Rel. Tiernan v. Mayor of BaltimoreSupreme Court of the United States · 1833
- Eilenbecker v. District Court of Plymouth CountySupreme Court of the United States · 1890
- Pervear v. CommonwealthSupreme Court of the United States · 1867
- Johnson v. Martin, Wise & FitzhughCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1889
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Ex parte DeVoreNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1913
- Galt v. HolderCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1903
- Perry v. CarlisleCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1912
- Hamilton v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1913
- State v. Certain Contraceptive MaterialsConnecticut Superior Court · 1939
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.