Legal Opinion

Chapman v. American Rio Grande Land & Irr. Co.

Court of Appeals of Texas

Decided March 18, 1925No. 7313PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtEly, C. J.

This is a suit by defendant in error, hereinafter designated Company, to recover of plaintiff in error, herein called Chapman, and M. E. France, the sum of $1,753.33, charges for water on four separate tracts of land lying contiguous to its irrigation canals. Chapman filed a cross-action for damages caused by. the seepage of water upon his land from the canals of the Company. The court sustained exceptions to the cross-action and it was dismissed. The cause was then tried by Jury, and upon their verdict judgment was rendered against Chapman for $1,014.48, due on a contract made by him with…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Edinburg Irr. Co. v. PaschenTexas Commission of Appeals · 1922
  2. Edinburg Irr. Co. v. PaschenCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1920
  3. Louisiana Rio Grande Canal Co. v. FrazierCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1917

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Clear Lake Apartments, Inc. v. Clear Lake Utilities Co.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1976
  2. Gavin v. WebbCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1936
  3. City of Wichita Falls v. BrunerCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1942
  4. Combs v. United Irr. Co.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1937
  5. Clear Lake Apartments, Inc. v. Clear Lake Utilities Co.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1976

1 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