Siddall v. Hudson
Court of Appeals of Texas
On Supplemental Motion for Rehearing. Motion granted.
1Opinion of the CourtGraves, J.
The supplemental motion for rehearing presented in this cause by the ap-pellee is so convincing that not only has it been permitted to be filed, and consideration given it, but lias impelled the conclusion tbat it ought to be granted.
In disposing of the second ground presented in the original motion for rehearing (Siddall v. Hudson, 201 S. W. at page 1032), it was suggested that appellant’s answer, the sole source of any showing that there might be other claimants of the land sought to be surveyed, probably did not disclose sufficient facts concerning the ownership of the abutting lands,…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Arkansas v. TennesseeSupreme Court of the United States · 1918
- State v. GoodnightTexas Supreme Court · 1888
- State v. Muncie Pulp Co.Tennessee Supreme Court · 1907
- Stockley v. CissnaTennessee Supreme Court · 1907
- Adams v. Casey-Swasey Co.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1897
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Manry v. RobisonTexas Supreme Court · 1932
- Ross v. GreenTexas Supreme Court · 1940
- Norfolk & Western Railway Co. v. HendersonSupreme Court of Virginia · 1922
- Grubstake Inv. Ass'n v. StateCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1925
- Sunshine Oil Corporation v. DooleyCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1922
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.