Legal Opinion
Cavaness v. General Corporation
Texas Supreme Court
Decided October 5, 1955No. A-4992PublishedCited by 19 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Garwood
The single issue at the present stage of this litigation concerns the right of our petitioner, J. D. Cavaness, to maintain individually an action upon a written agreement made by him in the name of, and as purported president of, a purported corporation, called D-A-M Company, which has actually never existed either de jure or de faoto.
The agreement, dated July 17, 1946, was a license of patent rights actually then and still owned by the petitioner-plaintiff, Cavaness, but recited to belong to the purported corporation, which was also the named payee of the stipulated minimum royalties, which…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Heffron v. PollardTexas Supreme Court · 1889
- Tinsley v. DowellTexas Supreme Court · 1894
- Martin v. HemphillTexas Commission of Appeals · 1922
- Weeks v. San Angelo Nat. BankCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1933
- Cavaness v. General CorporationCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1954
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by19 opinions
- Nishimatsu Construction Co., Ltd. v. Houston National Bank, Defendant-Third Party v. Jack D. Baize, Third PartyCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1975
- Fish v. Tandy Corp.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1997
- Ameripath, Inc. and DFW 5.01(a) Corporation v. Steven Hebert M.D., Texas Court of Appeals, 5th District (Dallas)2014
- Robertson v. LevyDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1964
- John F. Tomlin, Trustee v. The Ceres Corporation, Harry I. Neuman, Defendant-Third-Party Mitchell T. Curtis & Co., Inc., Third-PartyCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1975
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.