Legal Opinion

Hicks v. Hugo

Texas Commission of Appeals

Decided February 7, 1934No. 1737—6170PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

HARVEY, Presiding Judge.'

TMs suit was brought by the' plaintiffs in error, W. D. Hicks and wife, against the defendant in error, Victor Hugo, to cancel a certain promissory note, hereinafter described. The case was tried to the court, without a jury, and judgment was rendered in favor of Hugo.- The Court of Civil Appeals has affirmed that judgment. 43 S.W.(2d) 471.

The material facts are substantially as follows:

On May 4, 1925, the Wimer-Richardson Company, an investment corporation, whose place of business was in San Antonio; sold certain city lots to Mrs. Hicks. As part of the consideration…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Cunningham v. McDonaldTexas Supreme Court · 1904
  2. Hicks v. HugoCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1931

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. United Missouri Bank, N.A. v. BeardMissouri Court of Appeals · 1994
  2. Citywide Banks v. ArmijoColorado Court of Appeals · 2011
  3. Boltz v. GrafTexas Commission of Appeals · 1934

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API