Legal Opinion
Flow v. Friesen
Court of Appeals of Texas
Decided September 15, 1948No. 11830PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
NORVELL, Justice.
This is an appeal from a judgment rendered on a special issue verdict for $3,702.-00, against W. R. Flow, as principal, and United States Casualty Company of New York, as surety, and in favor of H. P. Friesen, the plaintiff below.
The appellants, W. R. Flow, a citrus fruit dealer, and the Casualty Company, which executed a surety bond for him in accordance with the provisions of the Citrus Fruit Growers Act, Article 118b, Vernon’s Ann.Civ.Stats., present a total of eighteen points of error, which for briefing purposes are grouped into six divisions and will be discussed…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Bank of Columbia v. OkelySupreme Court of the United States · 1819
- Proprietors of the Charles River Bridge v. Proprietors of the Warren BridgeSupreme Court of the United States · 1837
- Bell v. MulkeyTexas Commission of Appeals · 1929
- Merchants' Cotton Oil Co. v. Acme Gin Co.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1926
- Shell Pipe Line Corp. v. SvrcekCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1931
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Ho v. Wolfe, Texas Court of Appeals, 7th District (Amarillo)1985
- M. W. Fruit Co. v. BierbauerCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1948