Pacific Indemnity Co. v. Harrison
Court of Appeals of Texas
1Opinion
On Rehearing
DIXON, Chief Justice.
I believe that the motion for rehearing should be sustained, otir affirmance should be set aside, and the judgment of the trial court reversed and judgment here rendered for appellant that appellees take nothing.
After further consideration I have concluded that appellant’s second point is sufficient to challenge the trial court’s finding of fact No. 11: “The plaintiffs did not entrust the automobile to Davis.” See Swanson v. Swanson, 148 Tex. 600, 228 S.W.2d 156; Airline Motor Coaches v. Caver, 148 Tex. 521, 226 S.W.2d 830; Weir v. King, Tex.Civ.App., 166…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Swanson v. SwansonTexas Supreme Court · 1950
- State v. UglandNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1922
- Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. SalyersCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1943
- Airline Motor Coaches, Inc. v. CaverTexas Supreme Court · 1950
- De Haven v. TomerWashington Supreme Court · 1932
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.