Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
  • J. Cleo Thompson and W. S. Gamewell, for petitioner. No sufficient objection to the charge was presented by defendant. Roberson v. Hughes, 231 S.W. 734; M. K. T. Ry. Co. v. Maxwell, 143 S.W. 1147; Clonts v. Johnson, 294 S.W. 844; Waggoner v. Sigler Oil Co., 284 S.W. 926; Midland Natl. Bank v. Campbell, 18 S.W.2d 732; C. S. Ry. Co. v. Rowe, 224 S.W. 937; Article 2185, R. C. S., 1925; Isbell v. Lennox, 295 S.W. 920; Chisos Mining Co. v. Llanez, 298 S.W. 641. Defendant in error's bills of exception, nor any other part of the record showed that the arguments by the attorneys for plaintiff in error were not called forth by the evidence nor by the arguments, statements or remarks of the attorneys for defendant in error, but the Bills of Exception merely stated the remarks made by plaintiff in error's attorneys in their arguments. Article 2237, Subdivision 1 of 1925 R. C. S.; Kansas City M. O. Ry. Co. v. West, 149 S.W. 206-210; Travelers Insurance Co. v. Peters, 3 S.W.2d 568; Federal Life Insurance Co. v. Sweeney, 18 S.W.2d 702.
Judges
  • PER CURIAM:
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Click here to upload
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
  • J. Cleo Thompson and W. S. Gamewell, for petitioner. No sufficient objection to the charge was presented by defendant. Roberson v. Hughes, 231 S.W. 734; M. K. T. Ry. Co. v. Maxwell, 143 S.W. 1147; Clonts v. Johnson, 294 S.W. 844; Waggoner v. Sigler Oil Co., 284 S.W. 926; Midland Natl. Bank v. Campbell, 18 S.W.2d 732; C. S. Ry. Co. v. Rowe, 224 S.W. 937; Article 2185, R. C. S., 1925; Isbell v. Lennox, 295 S.W. 920; Chisos Mining Co. v. Llanez, 298 S.W. 641. Defendant in error's bills of exception, nor any other part of the record showed that the arguments by the attorneys for plaintiff in error were not called forth by the evidence nor by the arguments, statements or remarks of the attorneys for defendant in error, but the Bills of Exception merely stated the remarks made by plaintiff in error's attorneys in their arguments. Article 2237, Subdivision 1 of 1925 R. C. S.; Kansas City M. O. Ry. Co. v. West, 149 S.W. 206-210; Travelers Insurance Co. v. Peters, 3 S.W.2d 568; Federal Life Insurance Co. v. Sweeney, 18 S.W.2d 702.
Judges
  • PER CURIAM:
See more information ...
Smart Summary

EUGENE CASTLE v. BROWN CRACKER CANDY COMPANY.

Application for Writ of Error — Ground of Dismissal Explained.

While reversal and remand of this cause by the Court of Civil Appeals, for error in the charge on measure of damages was unwarranted, no timely objection thereto having been presented, it was properly reversed for improper argument by counsel for plaintiff on the trial.

PER CURIAM:

While we do not think judgment properly reversed on error in charge on measure of damages, because such objection not timely presented, yet the same was properly reversed on argument of counsel as to his knowledge of plaintiff's character.

The application for writ of error is accordingly dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.
Try AI Pro free for 7 days Upgrade to AI Pro

Comments

CASTLE v. BROWN CRACKER CANDY CO
(Oct 15, 1930)