City of Dallas v. Texas Employers' Ins.

265 S.W. 1113, 1924 Tex. App. LEXIS 1459
Texas Commission of Appeals·Decided October 22, 1924·No. No. 3927·Published

Opinion

STAYTON, J.

The defendant in error shows by sworn motion that it has paid to plaintiff in error the full amount of taxes, interest, penalties, etc., involved in the suit against it, and has either paid or is ready to pay all of the costs of court. The plaintiff in error has not contested the motion. Upon the authority of Padgitt v. Young County, 111 Tex. 98, 229 S. W. 459, and Richmond et ux. v. Hog Creek Oil Co. et al. (Tex. Com. App.) 239 S. W. 904, the questions involved in the case in this court have become moot, and it should be dismissed. We therefore recommend that the writ of error be dismissed, and that the costs of the Supreme Court be adjudged against the defendant in error.

CURETON, C. J. Writ of error dismissed,in accordance with the recommendations of the Commission of Appeals.

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

City of Dallas v. Texas Employers' Ins., 265 S.W. 1113, 1924 Tex. App. LEXIS 1459 (Tex. Super. Ct. 1924).

265 S.W. 1113 (City of Dallas v. Texas Employers' Ins.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Padgitt v. Young County
229 S.W. 459 (Texas Supreme Court, 1921)
Richmond v. Hog Creek Oil Co.
239 S.W. 904 (Texas Commission of Appeals, 1922)