Legal Opinion
Camden Fire Ins. v. Sutherland
Texas Commission of Appeals
Decided June 9, 1926No. 663-4543PublishedCited by 18 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtPowell, P. J.
On July 2, 1924, the Murray Company of Dallas, manufacturers of cotton gins and appurtenant machinery, sold to defendant in error certain machinery of that kind, retaining a mortgage lien on the same for a large portion of the purchase money. On the date above mentioned, the sellers wrote Sutherland as follows:
“The Murray Company,
“Manufacturers of Cotton Ginning, Cotton Seed Oil Mill Machinery and Mill Supplies.
“Contracts #13850-1.
“Dallas, Texas, July 2, 1924.
“Mr. W. A. Sutherland, Las Cruces, New ,Mex. — Dear Sir: Shipments of machinery for Canutillo, Texas, and Yinton, Texas, as shown by…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Morrison v. Insurance Co. of North AmericaTexas Supreme Court · 1887
- Wagner & Chabot v. Westchester Fire InsuranceTexas Supreme Court · 1899
- Liverpool & London & Globe Insurance v. EndeTexas Supreme Court · 1885
- Commercial Union Assurance Co. v. PrestonTexas Supreme Court · 1926
- Texas State Mut. Fire Ins. v. RichbourgTexas Commission of Appeals · 1924
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by18 opinions
- Duval County Ranch Co. v. Alamo Lumber Co., Texas Court of Appeals, 7th District (Amarillo)1983
- The Travelers Indemnity Company v. B. N. Holman, Mary Alice CoombsCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1964
- Boston Ins. Co. v. RainwaterCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1946
- Scanlan v. Home Ins. Co.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1935
- Southern Underwriters v. JonesCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1929
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.