Legal Opinion

Cantrell v. Broadnax

Court of Appeals of Texas

Decided October 4, 1957No. 15311PublishedCited by 24 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

YOUNG, Justice.

This controversy between the parties involves the ownership of a wooden structure after its removal to Lots 3, 4 and S, Block A/6095, Honey Springs Addition to the City of Dallas, and placement upon temporary piling or underpinning. At close of testimony on trial to a jury the court ruled that no questions of fact had been raised, granting peremptory instructions as follows: In favor of Pate against Cantrell for $500; that the building was the property of Broadnax; and denying all other prayers for relief by way of cross-action, etc. To such rulings defendant Cantrell gave…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Williams v. EgglestonSupreme Court of the United States · 1898
  2. Nine Hundred Main, Inc. v. City of HoustonCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1941
  3. Upham Gas Co. v. SmithCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1952
  4. Grindstaff v. MatherCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1945
  5. Zerr v. HowellCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1935

3Cited by24 opinions

  1. Reames v. Hawthorne-Seving, Inc., Texas Court of Appeals, 5th District (Dallas)1997
  2. Merrimack Mutual Fire Insurance Co. v. Allied Fairbanks BankCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1984
  3. Groves v. HanksCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1976
  4. Dubin v. Carrier Corp., Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston)1987
  5. prod.liab.rep. (Cch) P 13,017 Linda Dedmon, Etc. v. Stewart-Warner Corp., Third-Party and v. Donald Hampton, Third-PartyCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1992

19 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