Campbell Cleaning & Dye Works Inc. v. Barnwell

Court of Appeals of Texas

Campbell Cleaning & Dye Works Inc. v. Barnwell

183 S.W.2d 256, 1944 Tex. App. LEXIS 923

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedJune 1, 1944

DocketNo. 4370.

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 183 S.W.2d 256 (Campbell Cleaning & Dye Works Inc. v. Barnwell) 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

Campbell Cleaning & Dye Works Inc. v. Barnwell, 183 S.W.2d 256, 1944 Tex. App. LEXIS 923 (Tex. Ct. App. 1944).

Pincite

Opinion

SUTTON, Justice.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the County Court at Law, Number Two, of Dallas County.' It is a companion case with Campbell Cleaning & Dye Works, Inc., v. Jack Porter et ux., 183 S.W.2d 253, this, day decided by this Court. The trial was to the court without a jury. The appellant declined to accept the Statement of Facts prepared by the Reporter; the parties could not agree upon the facts, and the court prepared and filed a statement. On request the Court filed Findings and Conclusions.

The points presented are like those presented in the companion case. The essential facts necessary for a determination of the appeal are almost exactly the same as in the other case. What is said in the other case applies fully to this case and determines it, and it would serve no purpose to repeat what has been said there here.

There is one difference found in this case. An attorney’s fee of $20 was recovered. Appellee in her brief states the fee is remitted to avoid the point, but there is no release or entry found in the record. The contention here, as in the other case, is the fee is not recoverable, because no provision is made for it in Art. 5169, Vernon’s Ann.Civ.St., nor is it recoverable under any provision of law. To this we cannot agree. We think it recoverable under Art. 2226, Vernon’s Ann. Civ. St. The fee is recoverable on the basis, under the article as “personal services rendered” and “labor done.”

The judgment of the trial court is in all things affirmed.

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

SUTTON, Justice.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the County Court at Law, Number Two, of Dallas County.' It is a companion case with Campbell Cleaning & Dye Works, Inc., v. Jack Porter et ux., 183 S.W.2d 253, this, day decided by this Court. The trial was to the court without a jury. The appellant declined to accept the Statement of Facts prepared by the Reporter; the parties could not agree upon the facts, and the court prepared and filed a statement. On request the Court filed Findings and Conclusions.

The points presented are like those presented in the companion case. The essential facts necessary for a determination of the appeal are almost exactly the same as in the other case. What is said in the other case applies fully to this case and determines it, and it would serve no purpose to repeat what has been said there here.

There is one difference found in this case. An attorney’s fee of $20 was recovered. Appellee in her brief states the fee is remitted to avoid the point, but there is no release or entry found in the record. The contention here, as in the other case, is the fee is not recoverable, because no provision is made for it in Art. 5169, Vernon’s Ann.Civ.St., nor is it recoverable under any provision of law. To this we cannot agree. We think it recoverable under Art. 2226, Vernon’s Ann. Civ. St. The fee is recoverable on the basis, under the article as “personal services rendered” and “labor done.”

The judgment of the trial court is in all things affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

183 S.W.2d 256, 1944 Tex. App. LEXIS 923, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/campbell-cleaning-dye-works-inc-v-barnwell-texapp-1944.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack