Legal Opinion

Moursund v. Priess

Texas Supreme Court

Decided May 10, 1892No. 7202PublishedCited by 26 opinions

Ho statement is necessary.

1Opinion of the Court

GARRETT, Presiding Judge,

Section JB. — There has been consolidated with this case, Ho. 7461, C. F. Priess, plaintiff in error, v. A. W. Moursund, defendant in error, which is a writ of error in the same case in which the appeal was taken, and presents cross-assignments of error by appellee. The two cases will be considered and disposed of together.

The suit below was a proceeding in garnishment, instituted against the appellant, A. W. Moursund, in the District Court of Gillespie County, September 28, 1889, by C. F. Priess, the appellee, who was plaintiff in a judgment obtained by him in said…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Price v. BradyTexas Supreme Court · 1858
  2. Mann v. KelseyTexas Supreme Court · 1888
  3. Carlisle v. SommerTexas Supreme Court · 1884

3Cited by26 opinions

  1. White v. WhiteTexas Supreme Court · 1944
  2. Daniels v. Pecan Valley Ranch, Inc., Texas Court of Appeals, 4th District (San Antonio)1992
  3. Rowley v. Lake Area National Bank, Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston)1998
  4. Long v. SheltonCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1913
  5. Automobile Underwriters' Ins. Co. v. MurrahCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1931

21 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