Legal Opinion

Beer v. Landman

Texas Supreme Court

Decided June 27, 1895No. 319PublishedCited by 69 opinions

Error to Court of Civil Appeals for Third District, in an appeal from McLennan County. The opinion contains a statement.

1Opinion of the Court

DENMAN, Associate Justice.

—On account of dealings in cotton futures between D. Landman, appellee, and H. & B. Beer, appellants, closed in December, 1891, appellee owed appellants $1004 on open account, to secure which he indorsed and delivered to them two negotiable vendor’s lien notes, hereinafter mentioned, and in August, 1892, he executed to the latter, in settlement of'said open account, his two promissory notes for $525 each, one of which was subsequently paid, leaving the two collateral notes with them as security. Before the filing of this suit, appellants, H. & B. Beer, residents of…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Galveston, Harrisburg & San Antonio Railway Co. v. WareTexas Supreme Court · 1889
  2. Hamilton v. CummingsNew York Court of Chancery · 1815
  3. Clarke v. Lincoln Lumber Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1884
  4. Barker v. CallihanSupreme Court of Alabama · 1843

3Cited by69 opinions

  1. Gulf Production Co. v. Continental Oil Co.Texas Supreme Court · 1942
  2. Hall v. EdwardsTexas Commission of Appeals · 1920
  3. Texas & Pacific Coal Co. v. LawsonTexas Supreme Court · 1896
  4. Morrison v. City of Fort WorthTexas Supreme Court · 1941
  5. Liedeker v. GrossmanTexas Supreme Court · 1947

64 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