Legal Opinion

Smith v. Paschal

Texas Commission of Appeals

Decided April 11, 1928No. Motion No. 8014; No. 1036—4943PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the CourtNickels, J.

The motion for rehearing filed by J. A. Paschal, defendant in error, in respect to the matters discussed in our original opinion (1 S. W. [2d] 1086) contains nothing that was not then considered. We have re-examined those questions, but we adhere to the conclusions formerly expressed.

The motion further presents error in our implied ruling against assignments (made in the Court of Civil Appeals [Paschal v. Hobby, 296 S. W. 336]) of error in failure of the trial judge to make and file conclusions of fact and law (article 2247, R. S. 1925), and of error in admission in evidence of the deposition…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Paschal v. HobbyCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1927

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Gulftex Drug Co. v. SchachterCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1937

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

Powered by the Exa API