Legal Opinion
Stamford Compress Co. v. Ft. Worth National Bank
Texas Supreme Court
Decided February 21, 1912No. 2191PublishedCited by 12 opinions
Error to the Court of Civil Appeals, Second District, in an appeal from Taylor County. The Bank sued the Compress Co. and had judgment. Defendant appealed and obtained writ of error on affirmance.
1Opinion of the CourtChief Justice Brown
E. S. Keen, W. B. and John Guitar, Jr., compose the partnership, Stamford Compress Company, and being engaged in operating a cotton compress at Stamford, Texas, executed this instrument:
“No. 290. Stamford, Texas, May 13th, 1908. No. Bales 42.
“Stamford Compress Company. Received from West Cotton Yard for account of Will Rives, Mark........ at owner’s risk, forty-two bales cotton. Not responsible for water damage or loss or damage by fire. This receipt must be returned on delivery of the cotton and is non-negotiable. (Signed) T. O. Purkett, Supt.”
The Court of Civil Appeals overlooked the…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Union Trust Co. v. WilsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1905
- Cowdrey v. VandenburghSupreme Court of the United States · 1880
- Quick v. MilliganIndiana Supreme Court · 1886
- Planters' Rice-Mill Co. v. Merchants' National BankSupreme Court of Georgia · 1887
- Preston v. WitherspoonIndiana Supreme Court · 1886
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Ex Parte GnesoulisCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1975
- Stamford Compress Co. v. Farmers' & Merchants' Nat. BankTexas Supreme Court · 1912
- Hubbell, Slack & Co. v. Farmers' Union Cotton Co.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1917
- Morris v. BurrowsCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1915
- Feder-Gregg Shoe Co. v. Big Four Shoe Store Co.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1925
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.