Legal Opinion

Harrell v. City of Lufkin

Texas Commission of Appeals

Decided February 10, 1926No. 731-4322PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtNickels, J.

With certain supplementary statements to be made, the case is sufficiently stated in the opinion of the honorable Court of Civil Appeals (265 S. W. 179). To that court’s expression that the contract between Hadden & Austin and Shear, on the one hand, and the city, upon the other, stipulated for “alternative material” for the “waterbound macadam base,” should he added this statement: The “alternative material” had to’ he “stone” of sizes and quality equal to a standard prescribed. The statement that the city permitted “a novation in the contract” (between the builders and itself) as to the…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Jones & Carey v. RisleyTexas Supreme Court · 1895
  2. G., H. & S. A. R'y Co. v. Henry & DilleyTexas Supreme Court · 1886
  3. Linch v. Paris Lumber and Grain Elevator Co.Texas Supreme Court · 1891
  4. Cotherman v. Oriental Oil Co.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1925
  5. Graves v. Allert FuessTexas Supreme Court · 1912

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

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Uvalde Rock Asphalt Co. v. FanthamCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1948
  2. Hooks v. CookCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1961
  3. Travis-Williamson County Water Control & Improvement District No. 1 v. PageCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1962
  4. Crawford-Strauss Properties, Inc. v. DoolittleCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1976
  5. Shambaugh v. WilsonCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1932

1 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