Legal Opinion

Panhandle & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Cowan

Court of Appeals of Texas

Decided October 4, 1922No. 2006PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

The account sales was admissible to show the price per pound at which the commission company sold the hogs. The trial court was not required, on objection to the admission of the instrument as an entirety, to separate the admissible from the inadmissible parts of the instrument. N.Y., T. M. Ry. Co. v. Gallaher, 79 Tex. 685, 15 S.W. 695 (point not in syllabus); G., H. S. A. Ry. Co. v. Gormley, 91 Tex. 393,43 S.W. 877, 66 Am.St.Rep. 894; Q., A. P. Ry. Co. v. Galloway (Tex. Civ. App.) 140 S.W. 369 (6). So if it be true that the account sales was not admissible to show weight of the hogs at…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Galveston, Harrisburg & San Antonio Railway Co v. GormleyTexas Supreme Court · 1898
  2. Missouri, K & T. Ry. Co. of Texas v. WashburnCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1916
  3. New York, Texas & Mexican Railway Co. v. GallaherTexas Supreme Court · 1891
  4. San Antonio & Aransas Pass Railway Co. v. TurnerCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1906

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Luvual v. Henke & Pillot, Division of the Kroger Co.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1963
  2. Roberts v. Dallas Railway & Terminal CompanyCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1953
  3. Texas Employers' Ins. Ass'n v. DavidsonCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1926
  4. Williams v. FuerstenbergCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1928
  5. Beverly v. SiegelCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1932

6 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