Legal Opinion

Biggs v. Doak

Court of Appeals of Texas

Decided April 10, 1924No. 1552. [fn*]PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHiggins, J.

The judgment herein was affirmed February 14th of this year. Motion for rehearing was overruled March 13th without opinion. On March 28th, appellant filed a second motion for rehearing, and, in view of the earnestness with which it is urged, the reasons for overruling same will be stated.

The first ground of the motion was first raised in the previous motion for rehearing and is that there is neither plea nor proof that .appellees were the owners of the note sued upon in the cross-action. * There is no direct allegation to this effect, but the whole import of the cross-action is that they were…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Houston Oil Co. of Texas v. KimballTexas Supreme Court · 1910
  2. Western Union Telegraph Co. v. HudsonTexas Supreme Court · 1910
  3. Schmidt v. McCoplinCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1922
  4. W. L. Pearson & Co. v. City of Port LavacaCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1923

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Ferguson v. FergusonCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1928
  2. Commercial Investment Trust, Inc. v. SmartTexas Supreme Court · 1934
  3. Commercial Inv. Trust, Inc. v. SmartTexas Commission of Appeals · 1934
  4. Ottenhouse v. AbernathyCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1937
  5. Lowe v. MastersonCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1936

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

Powered by the Exa API