Legal Opinion

Hanes v. Hanes

Texas Commission of Appeals

Decided March 22, 1922No. 248-3448PublishedCited by 23 opinions

Error to Court of Civil Appeals of Fifth Supreme Judicial District.

1Opinion of the CourtMcCDENDON, P. J.

[1] Defendant in error was appellant in the Court of Civil Appeals, and in that court urged six assignments of error, numbered 1 to 7, there being no assignment No. 2. Five of these assignments were overruled by that court, but the sixth (No. 7), to the effect that the deed under which plaintiff claimed was tainted' with illegality, in that its consideration in part was an agreement not to prosecute defendant’s son, was sustained, the trial court’s judgment reversed, and judgment rendered in favor of the appellant in that court, defendant below, and defendant in error here. The cause was…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Holland v. NimitzTexas Supreme Court · 1922
  2. Marler v. HandyTexas Supreme Court · 1895
  3. Cooley v. MillerTexas Commission of Appeals · 1921
  4. McGaughey v. American Nat. Bank of AustinCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1905

3Cited by23 opinions

  1. Associated Oil Co. v. HartTexas Commission of Appeals · 1925
  2. Wootton v. JonesCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1926
  3. Garza v. KenedyTexas Commission of Appeals · 1927
  4. Schulz v. L. E. Whitham & Co.Texas Supreme Court · 1930
  5. Holt v. HoltSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1950

18 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