Cameron & Co. v. E. O. & Cates

Court of Appeals of Texas

Cameron & Co. v. E. O. & Cates

55 S.W. 980, 22 Tex. Civ. App. 577, 1900 Tex. App. LEXIS 64

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedFebruary 17, 1900

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 55 S.W. 980 (Cameron & Co. v. E. O. & Cates) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Cameron & Co. v. E. O. & Cates, 55 S.W. 980, 22 Tex. Civ. App. 577, 1900 Tex. App. LEXIS 64 (Tex. Ct. App. 1900).

Pincite

Opinion

*578 CONNER, Chief Justice.

—This case is in all substantial particulars the same as cause No. 3346, E. O. and D. C. Cates, appellants, v. E. Riley et al., appellees, this day decided by us, save that in the latter case William Cameron & Co. are appellees, and herein are plaintiffs in error, the writ of error having been sued out after the appeal in said cause No. 3346 had been duly perfected and the transcript filed in this court.

We think it unquestionably true that the questions herein presented might have been as effectively presented by plaintiffs in error by cross-assignments -of error in cause No. 3346. Duren v. Railway, 86 Texas, 287; Brown v. Hudson, 14 Texas Civ. App., 605. Not having done so, we do not think they can be now heard on writ of error, under the circumstances with which we are now confronted. If such practice be indulged, the anomaly of diverse holdings as to the same judgment might arise, a condition evidently not contemplated in conferring the right to writ of error. ,

'We have disposed of cause No. 3346 on its merits, and as was said, in effect, by this court in Railway v. Lacy, 7 Texas Civil Appeals, 64, we apprehend that no - ease will be found which will authorize us to again adjudicate issues fully presented to us on an appeal to which plaintiffs in error were parties. Hence the writ of error herein will be dismissed, and it is so ordered.

Dismissed.

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

*578 CONNER, Chief Justice.

—This case is in all substantial particulars the same as cause No. 3346, E. O. and D. C. Cates, appellants, v. E. Riley et al., appellees, this day decided by us, save that in the latter case William Cameron & Co. are appellees, and herein are plaintiffs in error, the writ of error having been sued out after the appeal in said cause No. 3346 had been duly perfected and the transcript filed in this court.

We think it unquestionably true that the questions herein presented might have been as effectively presented by plaintiffs in error by cross-assignments -of error in cause No. 3346. Duren v. Railway, 86 Texas, 287; Brown v. Hudson, 14 Texas Civ. App., 605. Not having done so, we do not think they can be now heard on writ of error, under the circumstances with which we are now confronted. If such practice be indulged, the anomaly of diverse holdings as to the same judgment might arise, a condition evidently not contemplated in conferring the right to writ of error. ,

'We have disposed of cause No. 3346 on its merits, and as was said, in effect, by this court in Railway v. Lacy, 7 Texas Civil Appeals, 64, we apprehend that no - ease will be found which will authorize us to again adjudicate issues fully presented to us on an appeal to which plaintiffs in error were parties. Hence the writ of error herein will be dismissed, and it is so ordered.

Dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

55 S.W. 980, 22 Tex. Civ. App. 577, 1900 Tex. App. LEXIS 64, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cameron-co-v-e-o-cates-texapp-1900.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack