Bonnell v. Prince

Decided January 6, 1896

Texas Supreme Court · decided 1896-01-06

<p>Cases Adhered to—Petition for Writ of Error.</p> <p>Hilliard v. White, 88 Texas, 591; Hodo v. Railway, 88 Texas, 523; Hammond v. Tarver, 32 S. W. Rep., 511; and Willis’ Executors V. Moore, ante, p. - (32 S. W. Rep., 1038), adhered to. Requisites of petition for writ of error. The application must conform to Rule 1, amended rules, 87 Texas, XXXVII.</p>

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1896-01-06

How this case has been cited

Cited by 31 later decisions — most recently September 1982 · most notably Early-Foster Co. v. Mid-Tex Oil Mills (1918), Garcia v. Rutledge (1982)

31 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 →

GAIHES, Chief Justice.

¶1 The petition for the writ of error in this ease does not comply with the rules. Its objectionable features are quite similar -to those .which appeared in the petition in the case of Hilliard v. White, and which were pointed out in our opinion delivered at the present term. 88 Texas, 591, (32 S. W. Rep., 525.) That opinion in connection with those in the following cases, will be sufficient to guide counsel in amending their application: Hodo v. Railway Co., 88 Texas, 523, (32 S. W. Rep., 511); Hammond v. Tarver, 32 S. W. Rep., 511, and Willis, Exrs. v. Moore, 32 S. W. Rep., 1038.

¶2 Applicant is allowed ten days in which to amend his application.

¶3 The petition was amended. The application was refused.