G.H. S.A. Ry. Co. v. Cade

94 S.W. 219, 100 Tex. 37, 1906 Tex. LEXIS 168
Texas Supreme Court·Decided May 23, 1906·No. Application No. 5002.·Published·Cited by 12 cases

Opinion

The Honorable Court of Civil Appeals held that the right to repudiate the settlement made in this case by the plaintiff below with the railroad company was not lost by the delay which had occurred, and that delay to signify a repudiation of that settlement for any period of time short of the time prescribed for limitation of the action would not defeat the right to set the settlement aside. We do not indorse the proposition thus stated, but the reasonableness of the delay being one of fact, this court can not pass upon it, for which reason we refuse the application.

Writ of error refused. *Page 38

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

G.H. S.A. Ry. Co. v. Cade, 94 S.W. 219, 100 Tex. 37, 1906 Tex. LEXIS 168 (Tex. 1906).

94 S.W. 219 (G.H. S.A. Ry. Co. v. Cade) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Shields v. Dunlap
174 S.W.2d 642 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1943)
Fort Worth & R. G. Ry. Co. v. Pickens
153 S.W.2d 252 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1941)
Southern Home Bldg. Co. v. Wimbish
112 S.W.2d 211 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1937)
Ley v. Ruland
123 S.W.2d 390 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1937)
Robert Hind, Limited v. Silva
75 F.2d 74 (Ninth Circuit, 1935)
Dallas Opera House Ass'n v. Dallas Enterprises, Inc.
288 S.W. 656 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1926)
Dickson v. Day
275 S.W. 307 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1925)
Chandler v. Riley
210 S.W. 716 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1919)
Grundy v. Greene
207 S.W. 964 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1918)
Lone Star Life Ins. Co. v. Pierce
200 S.W. 1104 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1918)
Winters v. Coward
174 S.W. 940 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1915)
Luckenbach v. Thomas
166 S.W. 99 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1914)