Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Baldwin
Court of Appeals of Texas
1Opinion of the CourtWillson, C. J.
(after stating the facts as 'above). The contention that the court erred when he refused to sustain appellant’s objection to the depositions of the witnesses Foster, Morris, Fish, and Braswell, on the ground that it did not appear that the answers of the witnesses, respectively, were "subscribed and sworn to” by them, respectively, is overruled. Contrary to the contention, it plainly appeared, we think, from the certificates (set out in the bills of exceptions) of the officer who took the depositions, that each of the witnesses did “subscribe and swear to” his answers to the interrogatories…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Wabash Railroad v. HayesSupreme Court of the United States · 1914
- Southern Pacific Co. v. Industrial Accident CommissionSupreme Court of the United States · 1920
- Osborne v. GraySupreme Court of the United States · 1916
- Progressive Lumber Co. v. Marshall & East Texas Railway Co.Texas Supreme Court · 1913
- Grow v. Oregon Short Line Ry. Co.Utah Supreme Court · 1913
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Dancy v. PeytonCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1926
- Missouri Pac. Ry. Co. v. BaldwinTexas Commission of Appeals · 1925
- Small v. TaylorCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1932
- Fulcher v. YoungCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1945
- Southern Travelers' Ass'n v. ColeCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1931
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.