Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

100 S.W.2d 1025

Read v. Thomas

Court of Appeals of Texas

Decided December 11, 1936

Court of Appeals of Texas · decided 1936-12-11

Relies on Haynes v. J. F. Radford Grocery Company

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1936-12-11

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently August 1997

5 state decisions

301936194019501960197019801990decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

LESLIE, Chief Justice.

¶1This is a suit by H. Clay Read and wife against the defendants Clyde E. Thomas and others to cancel certain deeds and to adjudicate ownership and the right of possession to the property involved. Upon a trial in the lower court judgment was rendered that plaintiffs take nothing by their suit as against the defendants and that defendants, each and all, go hence without a day with their costs, etc. The plaintiffs appeal.

¶2The case comes to this court upon a transcript of the record only. Neither party has filed any brief in this court. We have therefore examined the record in this case in order to determine whether there is ' fundamental error in the trial court’s judgment. Finding none, it is' the duty of this court to affirm the same, which is done upon the authority of Haynes v. J. M. Radford Groc. Co., 118 Tex. 277, 14 S.W.(2d) 811; Id., (Tex.Civ.App.) 16 S.W.(2d) 1118.

¶3Further, Read and wife have filed no statement of facts in this court in an effort to establish any of the allegations and charges set up in the pleadings upon which they went to trial. For the reason first above set out and upon the authority cited, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

/100/sw2d/1025 · .json · Public domain