Yeakley v. Gaston
Court of Appeals of Texas
Appeal from the District Court of Montague County. Tried below before Hon. Clem B. Potter.
1Opinion of the Court
STEPHENS, Associate Justice.
The case is sufficiently stated in the court’s findings of fact, which we adopt.
The first assignment submitted in the brief reads: “Because the court erred in rendering judgment for defendant and in not rendering judgment for the plaintiff as prayed for, on the findings of fact found by the court and filed herein.” This assignment is objected to for being too general, in support of which the following cases are cited: Tudor v. Hodges, 71 Texas, 392, and Bayne v. Denny, 52 S. W., 983, to which may be added Wright v. Wren, 16 S. W., 996. It is difficult to see how it…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Dwight v. HamiltonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1873
- Foss v. RobyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1907
- Tudor v. HodgesTexas Supreme Court · 1888
- Beatty v. CobleIndiana Supreme Court · 1895
- Timmerman v. DeverMichigan Supreme Court · 1883
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Nail v. NailTexas Supreme Court · 1972
- Faust v. . RohrSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1914
- Prahinski v. PrahinskiCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1990
- City of San Antonio v. Alamo National BankCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1908
- Nail v. NailCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1972
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.