Legal Opinion

Stokes v. Stokes

Court of Appeals of Texas

Decided March 18, 1932No. 960PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtLeslie, J.

This is a suit by the plaintiffs against the defendants for damages alleged to have been occasioned them by a fraud perpetrated upon them, in that said defendants overreached them by means of an artifice or trick employed to induce them to sell certain lands at a price far below its value. The defendants answered separately by general denial, special defenses, and some of them presented cross-actions. The trial was before the court without a jury. Judgment was rendered denying plaintiffs recovery and removing cloud (plaintiffs’ claim) from title to the land in response to a cross-action of…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Olston v. Oregon Water Power & Ry. Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1908
  2. Hetland v. BilstadSupreme Court of Iowa · 1908
  3. Mudsill Min. Co. v. WatrousCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1894
  4. Adams v. CollinsMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1907
  5. Hoyt v. First Nat. Bank of ChesterCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1922

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Robert B. Allen v. Devon Energy Holdings, L.L.C. F/K/A Chief Holdings, L.L.C, and Trevor D. Rees-Jones, Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston)2012
  2. Matheson Tri-Gas, Inc. v. Maxim Integrated Products, Inc., Texas Court of Appeals, 5th District (Dallas)2014
  3. Matheson Tri-Gas, Inc. v. Maxim Integrated Products, Inc., Texas Court of Appeals, 5th District (Dallas)2014
  4. Robert B. Allen v. Devon Energy Holdings, L.L.C. F/K/A Chief Holdings, L.L.C, and Trevor D. Rees-Jones, Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston)2014

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API