Batson-Milholme Co. v. Faulk

211 S.W. 972, 109 Tex. 480, 1919 Tex. LEXIS 84
CourtTexas Supreme Court
DecidedMay 14, 1919
DocketApplication No. 11154. Motion No. 4510.
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 211 S.W. 972 (Batson-Milholme Co. v. Faulk) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Texas Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Batson-Milholme Co. v. Faulk, 211 S.W. 972, 109 Tex. 480, 1919 Tex. LEXIS 84 (Tex. 1919).

Opinion

Mr. Chief Justice PHILLIPS

delivered the order of the court.

There is matter contained in the motion for rehearing filed for the plaintiff in error directed to our action in refusing a writ of error which we do not think has any proper place in a document addressed to this court. It is said in effect that the question involved has only been carelessly considered by this court and the several Courts of Civil Appeals which have passed upon it. The contrary is true with respect to this court’s action, and we believe it to be equally true in respect to the action of the Courts of Civil Appeals. It is furthermore plainly intimated that this court’s denial of the writ of error was due to an obstinate refusal to be governed by what the counsel for plaintiff in error advanced as controlling authorities on the question. The spirit of the motion as revealed by its language is captious and sarcastic. Only a broad charity would prevent its being characterized as intentionally disrespectful. The question involved in the case received at our hands a painstaking investigation. We regarded it as correctly determined by the Court of Civil Appeals, whatever conflict may be found in the reasoning of the different Courts of Civil Appeals upon it. We are willing to accord the utmost liberty to -counsel in the presentation of cases here. But the court owes it to itself not to 'consider motion couched in such terms as this one is and it will not consider the motion. Such a document can serve no office in this court and has no place here. It is ordered that it be stricken from the files.

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

Related

Steere v. State Bar of Texas
510 S.W.2d 411 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1974)
Shore v. Carl
284 S.W. 289 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1926)
Producers' Oil Co. v. Daniels
259 S.W. 936 (Texas Commission of Appeals, 1924)
George W. Armstrong Co. v. Adair
247 S.W. 848 (Texas Supreme Court, 1923)
Producers Oil Co. v. Daniels
244 S.W. 117 (Texas Supreme Court, 1922)
Millers' Indemnity Underwriters v. Lane
241 S.W. 1085 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1922)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
211 S.W. 972, 109 Tex. 480, 1919 Tex. LEXIS 84, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/batson-milholme-co-v-faulk-tex-1919.