Legal Opinion

North v. Mergenthaler Linotype Co.

Court of Appeals of Texas

Decided December 12, 1934No. 9474PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

BICKETT, Chief Justice.

Mergenthaler Linotype Company, a New York corporation, sued Arthur North, Y. V. Daniels, and others, upon ten promissory notes, aggregating $300 principal, and for foreclosure of a chattel mortgage lien upon certain linotype equipment. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff against all of the defendants, North and Daniels have appealed upon the sole contention that plaintiff could not maintain the suit, because it did not have a permit to do business in this state, as required by árticle 1529, Revised Civil Statutes of Texas (1925).

The defendants, other than North and…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. York Manufacturing Co. v. ColleySupreme Court of the United States · 1918
  2. Security Co. v. Panhandle National BankTexas Supreme Court · 1900
  3. J. B. Colt Co. v. McBurnettCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1927
  4. American Soda Fountain Co. v. HairstonCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1934
  5. Phelps v. Jesse French & Sons Piano Co.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1933

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

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Robbins v. Benjamin Air Rifle Co.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1954
  2. Harcrow v. W. T. Rawleigh Co.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1940
  3. Pope v. Mergenthaler Linotype Co.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1939
  4. Fate-Root-Heath Co. v. Howard Kenyon Dredging Co.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1938
  5. Pope v. Mergenthaler Linotype Co.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1939

1 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