Fankhauser v. Puckett

Court of Appeals of Texas

Fankhauser v. Puckett

47 S.W.2d 1119, 1932 Tex. App. LEXIS 256

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedMarch 9, 1932

DocketNo. 8776

StatusPublished

This text of 47 S.W.2d 1119 (Fankhauser v. Puckett) 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

Fankhauser v. Puckett, 47 S.W.2d 1119, 1932 Tex. App. LEXIS 256 (Tex. Ct. App. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

SMITH, J.

This appeal is based solely upon the proposition that the trial judge abused his discretion in overruling appellant’s motion for new; trial. The agreed facts in the ease were presented to the trial judge, who, after considering them along with all the other matters apparent of record or otherwise known to him, refused to grant the motion. We conclude that the court was justified in its ruling, or at least, and certainly, this court cannot say that the trial judge abused his rather wide discretion in such matters.

The judgment must be affirmed.

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

SMITH, J.

This appeal is based solely upon the proposition that the trial judge abused his discretion in overruling appellant’s motion for new; trial. The agreed facts in the ease were presented to the trial judge, who, after considering them along with all the other matters apparent of record or otherwise known to him, refused to grant the motion. We conclude that the court was justified in its ruling, or at least, and certainly, this court cannot say that the trial judge abused his rather wide discretion in such matters.

The judgment must be affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

47 S.W.2d 1119, 1932 Tex. App. LEXIS 256, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fankhauser-v-puckett-texapp-1932.