Legal Opinion

Prideaux v. Roark

Texas Commission of Appeals

Decided February 23, 1927No. 908—4669PublishedCited by 19 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBishop, J.

Defendants in error B. P. Roark and his two sons and daughter instituted this suit against plaintiffs in error Motor Supply Company, a corporation, F. A., C. C., E. R., H. O., and J. L. Prideaux, alleging that in December, 1922, B. P. Roark was fraudulently induced by plaintiffs in error to purchase and pay for 150 shares of capital stock of Motor Supply Company, issued to his sons and daughter, at the par value of $100 per share, and that the acts of fraud consisted in representations of past and then existing material facts, which were false, and also false promises to do acts in the future…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. American Indemnity Co. v. City of AustinTexas Supreme Court · 1922
  2. Clem v. EvansTexas Commission of Appeals · 1927
  3. Roark v. PrideauxCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1926
  4. Commercial Standard Insurance v. MoodyTexas Supreme Court · 1925

3Cited by19 opinions

  1. Weatherly v. JacksonTexas Supreme Court · 1934
  2. Bush v. GaffneyCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1935
  3. Clem v. EvansTexas Commission of Appeals · 1927
  4. Wood v. WilliamsCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1932
  5. Maple Hill Farms, Inc. v. DIV. NJ REAL ESTATE COMM'NNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1961

14 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