Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

263 S.W. 646

Lancaster v. Crosby

Court of Appeals of Texas

Decided June 10, 1924

Court of Appeals of Texas · decided 1924-06-10

R. Warren, Judge. Action by E. W. Crosby against J. L. Lancaster and others. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal. Appellee resided in Gilmer, but on the night of December 28, 1922, was in Big Sandy for the purpose of taking a train over the Texas & Pacific Railway Company’s line of railway to Dallas, where his wife was sick.

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently November 1937

2 state decisions

Relies on Lange v. Lawrence · Equipment Co. v. Luse · Holt v. Uvalde Co.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Affirmed · Decided 1924-06-10

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

WILLSON, O. J.

¶1 (after stating the facts as above). [1, 2] In the preparation of their brief appellants disregarded the requirement of rule 31 for the government of Courts of Civil Appeals, that a brief shall contain “a clear and accurate statement of the record bearing upon the respective propositions, with a reference to the pages of the record,” and therefore are not entitled to have their ’contentions here considered. Engelman v. Anderson (Tex. Civ. App.) 243 S. W. *648 728; Equipment Co. v. Luse (Tex. Civ. App.) 250 S. W. 1104; Rubber Co. v. Waldman (Tex. Civ. App.) 257 S. W. 929; Holt v. Uvalde Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 258 S. W. 285; Lange v. Lawrence (Tex. Civ. App.) 259 S. W. 261. However, we have read the record, including the testimony in the statement of facts, and considered same with reference to the grounds of the objection to the judgment, and have concluded that no reason, legal or otherwise, why it should be set aside, has been pointed. out. Therefore it will be affirmed.

¶2 <§r=oFor other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes

/263/sw/646 · .json · Public domain