Legal Opinion

A. Leschen & Sons Rope Co. v. Moser

Court of Appeals of Texas

Decided June 28, 1913PublishedCited by 13 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

ND, J. (after stating the facts as above).

By the first assignment of error appellant complains because a verdict was instructed for all defendants except Moser. It is contended that the issue whether the Del Carmen Mining Company assumed the indebtedness sued upon by appellant should have been submitted to the jury. All purchases from appellant were made by Moser individually, and it is clear that Moser bound himself to complete the tramway and turn it over to the company; all expense to be borne by him. To secure his compliance with such agreement, the stockholders purchasing from him…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. S. R. Smythe Co. v. Ft. Worth Glass & Sand Co.Texas Supreme Court · 1912
  2. Milan Milling, etc., Co. v. GortenTennessee Supreme Court · 1894
  3. Security Co. v. Panhandle National BankTexas Supreme Court · 1900
  4. State Bank of Chicago v. HollandTexas Supreme Court · 1910
  5. Flint & Walling Mfg. Co v. McDonaldSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1908

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

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. York Manufacturing Co. v. ColleySupreme Court of the United States · 1918
  2. Puffer Manufacturing Co. v. KellySupreme Court of Alabama · 1916
  3. York Mfg. Co. v. ColleyCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1914
  4. General Railway Signal Co. v. CommonwealthSupreme Court of Virginia · 1916
  5. General Talking Pictures Corp. v. SheaSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1932

8 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