First Nat. Bank of Amarillo v. Rush
Court of Appeals of Texas
Appeal from District Court, Potter County; Henry S. Bishop,' Judge. Suit by the First National Bank of Amarillo against J. W. Rush, Mamie Rush, as administratrix, being substituted as defendant, wherein W. H. Fuqua intervened. From judgment for defendant administratrix against plaintiff Bank, and in her favor against the intervener, etc., plaintiff Bank and the intervener appeal.
1Opinion of the CourtHuff, C. J.
This is the second appeal of this case, and for a statement of the case on the original appeal reference is made to the report thereof in 210 S. W. 521, 160 S. W. 319. As originally instituted, it will be observed that the bank brought suit against J. W. Rush and wife on a note for $12,000 due the bank, with 10 per cent, interest and attorney’s fees; that Rush pleaded, among other things, the payment of the note. W. H. Fuqua intervened in that suit and set up the fact that he and Rush were partners in the cattle business, and also were partners in the purchase of a section of land, in which…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- Roehm v. HorstSupreme Court of the United States · 1900
- Central Trust Co. of Ill. v. Chicago Auditorium Assn.Supreme Court of the United States · 1916
- Kilgore v. Northwest Texas Baptist Educational Ass'nTexas Supreme Court · 1896
- Greenwall Theatrical Circuit Co. v. MarkowitzTexas Supreme Court · 1904
- First Nat. Bank of Amarillo v. RushTexas Commission of Appeals · 1919
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- First National Bank of Amarillo v. RushTexas Commission of Appeals · 1922
- Indemnity Ins. Co. of North America v. SterlingCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1932
- J. I. Case Co. v. LaubhanCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1933
- Armstrong v. MarshallCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1940
- Kubatzky v. Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1926
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.