Farracy v. Security Nat. Bank

Texas Commission of Appeals

Farracy v. Security Nat. Bank

35 S.W.2d 403, 1931 Tex. App. LEXIS 2172

CourtTexas Commission of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 18, 1931

DocketMotions Nos. 196, 9182; No. 1191-5194

StatusPublished

This text of 35 S.W.2d 403 (Farracy v. Security Nat. Bank) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Texas Commission of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Farracy v. Security Nat. Bank, 35 S.W.2d 403, 1931 Tex. App. LEXIS 2172 (Tex. Super. Ct. 1931).

Pincite

Opinion

CRITZ, J.

The above cause is now before the Commission on two motions filed by the'Security National Bank and the Southwest National Bank. Motion No. 196 is for permission to orally argue the motion for rehearing either before the Commission or the Supreme Court; and motion No. 9182 is for rehearing.

It is not the practice of the Commission to hear oral argument on motions for rehearing, except when invited.

We have read and carefully considered all of the questions presented in the motion for rehearing, and still adhere to the views expressed in our original opinion, and the judgment there recommended.

We therefore recommend that the motion to orally argue, and the motion for rehearing be both in all things overruled.

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

CRITZ, J.

The above cause is now before the Commission on two motions filed by the'Security National Bank and the Southwest National Bank. Motion No. 196 is for permission to orally argue the motion for rehearing either before the Commission or the Supreme Court; and motion No. 9182 is for rehearing.

It is not the practice of the Commission to hear oral argument on motions for rehearing, except when invited.

We have read and carefully considered all of the questions presented in the motion for rehearing, and still adhere to the views expressed in our original opinion, and the judgment there recommended.

We therefore recommend that the motion to orally argue, and the motion for rehearing be both in all things overruled.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

35 S.W.2d 403, 1931 Tex. App. LEXIS 2172, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/farracy-v-security-nat-bank-texcommnapp-1931.