Legal Opinion

Langben v. Goodman

Court of Appeals of Texas

Decided June 24, 1925No. 8707. [fn*]PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtGraves, J.

After pointing out that this appeal, in effect, constitutes a protest against only so much of the trial court’s judgment as denied appellant a recovery on the two of the notes sued upon which represented unpaid dividends on the preferred stock involved, the appellee concedes that appellant makes a correct statement of the suit as follows :

“This- suit was brought by appellant, who was plaintiff below, against Burleigh Goodman, ap-pellee, defendant below; being a suit on three promissory notes, one in the sum of $1,000, due 180 days after June 19, 1922, one for the sum of $1,000, due 240 days…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Martin v. FewellSupreme Court of Missouri · 1883
  2. Hazeltine v. Belfast & Moosehead Lake RailroadSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1887
  3. Fidelity Trust Co. v. Lehigh Valley RailroadSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1906
  4. Bounds v. Hubbard CityCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1907
  5. Texas Pac. Coal & Oil Co. v. HarrisCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1921

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Penington v. Commonwealth Hotel Construction Corp.Court of Chancery of Delaware · 1931
  2. St. Regis Candies, Inc. v. HovasTexas Supreme Court · 1928
  3. Garrett v. Edge Moor Iron Co.Court of Chancery of Delaware · 1937
  4. Midland Shoe Co. v. A. L. & K. Dry Goods Co.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1926
  5. Murphy v. Richardson Dry Goods Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1930

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

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

Powered by the Exa API