Legal Opinion

Fort Worth & D. C. Ry. Co. v. Ryan

Court of Appeals of Texas

Decided January 21, 1925No. 10921PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

On Motion for Rehearing.

Our attention is called to the fact that the appellant did not, in his' motion 'for new trial in the court below, call the attention of the court to claimed' error of allowing intei’est from January 21, 1921, the date the cattle were sold. Hence, we were not required to adjudge the costs of appeal against the appellee. Shippers’ Compress & Warehouse Co. v. Davidson, 35 Tex. Civ. App. 558, 80 S. W. 1032, by the San Antonio Court of Civil Appeals; Moore et al. v. Wooten et al., 265 S. W. 210, by the Beaumont Court of Civil Appeals. Therefore, we conclude we erred in our…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Shippers Compress & Warehouse Co. v. DavidsonCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1904
  2. St. Louis Southwestern Ry. Co. v. SealesCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1922
  3. Moore v. WootenCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1924

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Lesikar Construction Company v. Acoustex, Inc.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1974
  2. Strickland Transportation Co. v. IngramCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1966
  3. Texas Employers' Ins. Ass'n v. DavidsonCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1926
  4. Lancaster v. NorrisCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1924
  5. New Amsterdam Casualty Co. v. ReevesCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1927

4 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