Legal Opinion

Hereford Cattle Co. v. Powell

Court of Appeals of Texas

Decided May 23, 1896Published

Error from Dallas. Tried below before Hon. R. E. Burke.

1Opinion

OR REI-IEARIRG.

1. In the able argument of counsel for plaintiff in error on the motion for rehearing, several points are presented which we deem it proper to notice. Upon the first ground of the motion, it is insisted that the *502writ of attachment should have been quashed, because 8800 of the amount was for capital stock of the company, and the petition does not allege 'that it was of any value.

The allegations of the petition were, in part, as follows: “the defendant agreed to pay plaintiff an annual rental of 83200, said rent to be paid semi-annually in advance, and to be paid in the city and…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Milliken v. SmootTexas Supreme Court · 1885
  2. I. & G. N. R'y Co. v. LeakTexas Supreme Court · 1885
  3. King v. GrayTexas Supreme Court · 1856
  4. Beeks v. OdomTexas Supreme Court · 1888
  5. Cheek, Guardian v. HerndonTexas Supreme Court · 1891

4 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