G. M. J. W. Magill v. Goshorn

Court of Appeals of Texas

G. M. J. W. Magill v. Goshorn

153 S.W. 185, 1913 Tex. App. LEXIS 78

Court of Appeals of Texas·Decided January 8, 1913·Published

Opinion

TALIAFERRO, J.

This ease is identical in all things, except parties plaintiff and amount involved, with the case of G. M. & J. W. Magill v. Sadie A. Young, 153 S. W. 184, decided to-day by this court, and for the reasons assigned in that case this cause will b’e affirmed. The appellant has filed a motion suggesting delay and asking for 10 per cent, damages. The motion is granted. There was no merit in the defense, and it seems clear to us that this appeal is taken merely for delay. The judgment of the court is affirmed, with 10 per cent, damages.

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

TALIAFERRO, J.

This ease is identical in all things, except parties plaintiff and amount involved, with the case of G. M. & J. W. Magill v. Sadie A. Young, 153 S. W. 184, decided to-day by this court, and for the reasons assigned in that case this cause will b’e affirmed. The appellant has filed a motion suggesting delay and asking for 10 per cent, damages. The motion is granted. There was no merit in the defense, and it seems clear to us that this appeal is taken merely for delay. The judgment of the court is affirmed, with 10 per cent, damages.

G. M. J. W. Magill v. Goshorn, 153 S.W. 185, 1913 Tex. App. LEXIS 78 (Tex. Ct. App. 1913).

Pincite

153 S.W. 185 (G. M. J. W. Magill v. Goshorn) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related