Legal Opinion

Port Arthur Rice Milling Co. v. Beaumont Rice Mills

Texas Supreme Court

Decided January 2, 1913PublishedCited by 32 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBrown, C. J.

Crediting counsel with a proper spirit of fairness and candor in presenting this motion, we must say that a strange persistency in misunderstanding and misstating the opinion of this court is manifest. We state the true situation:

1. The Court of Civil Appeals held that the statute of limitation began to run from the date of the conversion of the rice by the defendants in error. The evidence is undisputed that the Beaumont Rice Mills entered into a secret agreement with Burge to aid him in defrauding the Port Arthur Rice Milling Company of its debt and for that purpose concealed the…

2Cited by32 opinions

  1. Steele v. GlennCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1933
  2. McNeill v. SimpsonTexas Commission of Appeals · 1931
  3. Cox v. ClayCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1950
  4. Jones County v. MooreCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1928
  5. McFaddin, Wiess & Kyle Land Co. v. Texas Rice Land Co.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1923

27 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