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

LANCASTER et al. v. CROSBY.

WILLSON, C.J. (after stating the facts as above).

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. 728; Equipment Co. v. Luse (Tex.Civ.App.) 250 S.W. 1104; Rubber Co. v. Walkman (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.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

LANCASTER v. CROSBY
(Jun 19, 1924)