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
- Martin v. FewellSupreme Court of Missouri · 1883
- Hazeltine v. Belfast & Moosehead Lake RailroadSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1887
- Fidelity Trust Co. v. Lehigh Valley RailroadSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1906
- Bounds v. Hubbard CityCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1907
- Texas Pac. Coal & Oil Co. v. HarrisCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1921
3Cited by8 opinions
- Penington v. Commonwealth Hotel Construction Corp.Court of Chancery of Delaware · 1931
- St. Regis Candies, Inc. v. HovasTexas Supreme Court · 1928
- Garrett v. Edge Moor Iron Co.Court of Chancery of Delaware · 1937
- Midland Shoe Co. v. A. L. & K. Dry Goods Co.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1926
- Murphy v. Richardson Dry Goods Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1930
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.