City of San Antonio v. Pizzini

61 S.W. 1102, 95 Tex. 1, 1901 Tex. LEXIS 108
CourtTexas Supreme Court
DecidedMarch 18, 1901
DocketNo. 987.
StatusPublished
Cited by15 cases

This text of 61 S.W. 1102 (City of San Antonio v. Pizzini) 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
City of San Antonio v. Pizzini, 61 S.W. 1102, 95 Tex. 1, 1901 Tex. LEXIS 108 (Tex. 1901).

Opinion

WILLIAMS, Associate Justice.

This case is like that of the City of San Antonio v. Smith and Hildebrand & Hamilton, recently decided by this court, except that in the present case the judgment of the District Court in favor of defendant in error Pizzini, as well as that in favor of defendants Hildebrand & Hamilton, against the city, was affirmed by the Court of Civil Appeals, and the city assigns error upon both parts of the judgment of affirmance.

We are of opinion that the assignments of error by which the city seeks to reverse the judgment in favor of Pizzini were correctly decided by the Court of Civil Appeals, but that there was error in the affirmance of the judgment in favor of Hildebrand & Hamilton, and upon this the writ of error was granted. The opinion in the case referred to states the reasons for this opinion.

The judgment in favor of Pizzini is affirmed, but the judgments of *2 the District Court and of the Court of Civil Appeals in favor of Hildebrand & Hamilton are reversed and the cause, as between the city and those defendants, is remanded.

Affirmed in part and reversed 'and, remanded in part.

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

Related

Security Nat. Fire Ins. Co. v. Schott Drug Co.
103 S.W.2d 979 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1937)
Reed v. Hester
44 S.W.2d 1107 (Texas Commission of Appeals, 1932)
Fire Ass'n of Philadelphia v. Hinton
298 S.W. 178 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1927)
Home Ins. Co. v. F. C. Flewellen Produce Co.
247 S.W. 833 (Texas Commission of Appeals, 1923)
Home Ins. Co. v. Flewellen
221 S.W. 630 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1920)
Daugherty v. Wiles
207 S.W. 900 (Texas Commission of Appeals, 1919)
National Union Fire Ins. Co. v. Walker
156 S.W. 1095 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1912)
Shawnee Fire Ins. Co. v. Thompson Rowell
1911 OK 516 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1911)
Naylor v. Parker
139 S.W. 93 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1911)
Galveston, Harrisburg & San Antonio Railway Co. v. Pigott
116 S.W. 841 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1909)
Continental Fruit Express v. Leas
110 S.W. 129 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1908)
Donovan v. Royal
63 S.W. 1054 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1901)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
61 S.W. 1102, 95 Tex. 1, 1901 Tex. LEXIS 108, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-san-antonio-v-pizzini-tex-1901.