Arispe v. Clark

199 S.W. 500, 1917 Tex. App. LEXIS 1092
Court of Appeals of Texas·Decided December 5, 1917·No. No. 5927.·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

MOURSUND, J.

The appellants have not filed briefs in this court, and appellees 1\⅜>⅛ filed a brief which is not in compliance with rule 42 for the Courts of Civil Appeals (142 S. W. xiv). The judgment cannot be affirmed, but the appeal will be dismissed. In order for the appellees to have been entitled to an affirmance of the judgment, the case should have been briefed by them as provided in the rule cited. Suderman & Dolson v. Carson, 122 S. W. 401; Bowman v. Hoffman, 28 Tex. Civ. App. 311, 67 S. W. 152; American Warehouse Co. v. Hamblen, 146 S. W. 1006; S. W. Oil & Gas Co. v. Denny, 187 S. W. 973; Stocking v. Laas, 199 S. W. 500, this day decided by this court.

Appeal dismissed for want of prosecution.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Arispe v. Clark, 199 S.W. 500, 1917 Tex. App. LEXIS 1092 (Tex. Ct. App. 1917).

199 S.W. 500 (Arispe v. Clark) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Edwards v. Holder
215 S.W. 480 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1919)