Birdwell v. American Bonding Company
Court of Appeals of Texas
1Opinion of the Court
MASSEY, Chief Justice.
The cases before us on appeal were consolidated by order entered in the District Court, Young County, Texas, and considered together at one hearing, following which a single judgment was entered.
In view of the fact that we have reached the conclusion that the judgment of the trial court was erroneous in one case and correct in the other we have concluded that convenience in handling requires severance for purposes of judgment by this court. Convenience of discussion in the opinion, however, will be upon all phases of both cases, with distinctions to be made indicated…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Thomas v. Southwestern Settlement & Development Co.Texas Supreme Court · 1939
- Rio Bravo Oil Co. v. Staley Oil Co.Texas Commission of Appeals · 1942
- Rio Bravo Oil Co. v. Staley Oil Co.Texas Supreme Court · 1942
3Cited by23 opinions
- Glover v. Union Pacific Railroad, Texas Court of Appeals, 6th District (Texarkana)2006
- Wakefield v. Bevly, Texas Court of Appeals, 13th District1985
- Albert J. Fusco v. Johns-Manville Products Corp.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1981
- Harang v. Aetna Life Insurance CompanyCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1966
- Lathem v. Richey, Texas Court of Appeals, 5th District (Dallas)1989
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.