Legal Opinion

Harlingen Land & Water Co. v. Houston Motor Co.

Court of Appeals of Texas

Decided October 29, 1913PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtFly, C. J.

This is a suit on a promissory note executed by appellants to appellee for $2,700, dated March 8, 1908, with certain credits thereon amounting to $1,101.14. It was alleged by appellant that the note was given for a Stoddard-Dayton automobile, sold to them by appellee; that the automobile was warranted to be new and perfect in its parts; that the car was defective and appellants were compelled to buy two new cylinders, a new frame, and a wheel, and in one year bought 14 axles and were compelled to make other repairs. It was further alleged: “By reason of the premises these defendants say that…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Houston Oil Co. of Texas v. KimballTexas Supreme Court · 1910
  2. Western Union Telegraph Co. v. HudsonTexas Supreme Court · 1910
  3. White v. WadlingtonTexas Supreme Court · 1890
  4. Western Union Telegraph Co. v. HartfieldCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1911

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. Harlington Land & Water Co. v. Houston Motor Car Co.Texas Commission of Appeals · 1919
  2. Smalley v. VogtCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1914
  3. State v. Humble Oil & Refining Co.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1945
  4. Rone v. MartiCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1922
  5. Texas Cities Gas Co. v. GomezCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1942

7 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