Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges

Chester R. MORRIS, Petitioner, v. Sam A. HOERSTER and John T. Middleton, Respondents.Chester R. MORRIS, Petitioner,

PER CURIAM.

We agree with the result reached by the Court of Civil Appeals. 368 S.W.2d 639. However, we do not agree with the Court of Civil Appeals that petitioner's recourse in denial of a bill of discovery brought in conjunction with pending litigation, though brought as an independent action, is only by way of mandamus in the Supreme Court. The reasoning in Crane v. Tunks, 160 Tex. 182, 328 S.W.2d 434, does not necessarily apply where a bill of discovery has been denied.

The applications for writ of error are refused, n. r. e. Rule 483, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

MORRIS v. HOERSTER
(Oct 2, 1963)