296 S.W. 1062
Decided June 4, 1927
Texas Supreme Court · decided 1927-06-04
Key passage — most relied on by later courts
“We are not inclined to the view that the covenant to renew in the original lease was void for uncertainty. We conclude, however, that under the writings executed by the parties the plaintiffs in error had no right or option to renew the lease more than the one time. The Court of Civil Appeals having therefore entered the correct judgment, the writ of error will be refused, regardless of our failure to concur in all that is said in the opinion.”
quoted by 1 later decision, including Stephenson v. Chrisman
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1927-06-04
Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently May 1985 · most notably Sirtex Oil Industries, Inc. v. Erigan (1966), Burch v. City of San Antonio (1975)
3 federal appellate · 1 district · 29 state decisions
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 →
¶1We are not inclined to the view that the covenant to renew in the original lease was void for uncertainty.
¶2We conclude, however, that under the writings executed by the parties the plaintiffs in error had no right or option to renew the lease more than the one time.
¶3The Court of Civil Appeals having therefore entered the correct judgment, the writ of error will be refused, regardless of our failure to concur in all that is said in the opinion.