Mitchell v. City Nat. Bank of Wichita Falls
Court of Appeals of Texas
1Opinion of the Court
CONNEB, O. J.
As we understand the record in this ease, the material- question presented is a simple one. Briefly stated, ap-pellee instituted suit against M. D. May, E. W. Jones, and W. M. Mitchell on. a note, alleging that W. M. Mitchell and E. W. Jones was a partnership and that M. L. May, W. M. Mitchell, and;E. W. Jones constituted another partnership; that the partnership of Mitchell, Jones & May, by virtue of operations in the viSinity of Cross Plains, Tex., became in need of $15,000, for which the three partners were jointly and severally liable; that M. L. May applied to plaintiff for…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- George v. TateSupreme Court of the United States · 1881
- Harris County v. Donaldson & HinesCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1898
- Barton v. R. P. Ash Co.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1913
- Cannon v. WingMissouri Court of Appeals · 1910
- McLaughlin v. MulloyUtah Supreme Court · 1897
3Cited by3 opinions
- Hacker v. Whitney Dam Lumber & Construction Co.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1949
- Misco-United Supply, Inc. v. The Petroleum CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1972
- Womack v. First National Bank of San AugustineCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1981