E. W. Black v. San Antonio Morris Plan

Court of Appeals of Texas

E. W. Black v. San Antonio Morris Plan

287 S.W. 1117

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedNovember 6, 1926

DocketNo. 7615.

StatusPublished

This text of 287 S.W. 1117 (E. W. Black v. San Antonio Morris Plan) 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

E. W. Black v. San Antonio Morris Plan, 287 S.W. 1117 (Tex. Ct. App. 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

COBBS, J.

This was an ordinary suit in the county court of Bexar county for civil eases, for debt and foreclosure of a chattel mortgage. In the trial court the defendant appeared and filed a “plea in abatement,” alleging pendency of another suit in the district court, and filed no other answer. The judgment shows that exceptions to this plea in abatement were sustained, and that no evidence was offered in support of this plea, and that thereupon the county court heard the case on the merits and rendered judgment for the d.ebt and foreclosure. No formal assignments of error have been filed, and no brief for plaintiff in error has been filed; but the motion for new trial incorporated in the record complains of the action of the court in overruling the “plea in abatement.” There being no merit in the appeal, nor fundamental error apparent, the writ of error is accordingly-dismissed, and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

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

COBBS, J.

This was an ordinary suit in the county court of Bexar county for civil eases, for debt and foreclosure of a chattel mortgage. In the trial court the defendant appeared and filed a “plea in abatement,” alleging pendency of another suit in the district court, and filed no other answer. The judgment shows that exceptions to this plea in abatement were sustained, and that no evidence was offered in support of this plea, and that thereupon the county court heard the case on the merits and rendered judgment for the d.ebt and foreclosure. No formal assignments of error have been filed, and no brief for plaintiff in error has been filed; but the motion for new trial incorporated in the record complains of the action of the court in overruling the “plea in abatement.” There being no merit in the appeal, nor fundamental error apparent, the writ of error is accordingly-dismissed, and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

287 S.W. 1117, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/e-w-black-v-san-antonio-morris-plan-texapp-1926.