Legal Opinion

Smith v. Norton

Court of Appeals of Texas

Decided December 21, 1910PublishedCited by 7 opinions

Appeal from the District Court of Bexar County. Tried below before Hon. A. W. Seeligson.

1Opinion of the Court

FLY, Associate Justice.

Appellees sued appellants on six certain promissory notes to recover the principal, interest and attorney’s fees due thereon, and to foreclose a vendor’s lien on certain land. It was alleged that it was provided in the promissory notes that if there was ,a failure to pay off either of them when it became due, the others should become due and payable at the option of the holder, and that two of the notes became due on March 23, 1909, before the suit was instituted, and that appellees, the holders of the notes, had exercised their option and declared all of the notes due…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Maddox v. CraigTexas Supreme Court · 1891
  2. Adams v. BartellCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1907
  3. Rutherford v. GainesTexas Supreme Court · 1910
  4. Western & Southern Life Ins. v. CommonwealthCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1909

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Slaughter v. MortonCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1917
  2. East Texas Title Co. v. ParchmanCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1938
  3. Michalke v. BrownCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1916
  4. Jamail v. C. B. Cato & Co.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1927
  5. Miller v. Gaar-Scott Co.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1911

2 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