Legal Opinion

Caudle v. Eliasville State Bank

Court of Appeals of Texas

Decided April 17, 1936No. 13355PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

DUNKLIN, Chief Justice.

This suit was instituted by the Eliasville State Bank against H. M. and H. R. Caudle to recover balance due on three promissory notes executed by defendants to plaintiff. The defendants filed a cross-action in the form of counterclaim to recover of plaintiff damages for breach of its alleged parol contract for an extension of the maturity of the notes from their due dates in April and May of 1934 to October 1, 1934. The court sustained a general demurrer to that cross-action, and, upon refusal of defendants to amend, the same was dismissed. Judgment was then rendered in…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Austin Real Estate & Abstract Co. v. BahnTexas Supreme Court · 1895
  2. Hardwicke v. Trinity Universal Ins. Co.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1935
  3. Kirby v. American State Bank of AmarilloTexas Commission of Appeals · 1929
  4. State Nat. Bank of Iowa Park v. RogersCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1935
  5. Alford v. ThomasCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1922

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Okemah Construction, Inc. v. Barkley-Farmer, Inc.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1979
  2. Texas Automatic Sprinklers, Inc. v. SterlingCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1980
  3. Melson v. Bank of New MexicoNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1958
  4. Melson v. Bank of New MexicoNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1958
  5. Tolbert v. McSwainCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1939

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

Powered by the Exa API