Gray v. Eleazer

97 S.W. 707, 43 Tex. Civ. App. 417, 1906 Tex. App. LEXIS 114
CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedJune 13, 1906
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 97 S.W. 707 (Gray v. Eleazer) 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
Gray v. Eleazer, 97 S.W. 707, 43 Tex. Civ. App. 417, 1906 Tex. App. LEXIS 114 (Tex. Ct. App. 1906).

Opinion

KEY, Associate Justice.

Appellant being a public weigher in *418 Delta County, brought this suit against appellees to recover statutory penalties and punitory damages on account of the latter’s weighing cotton for other persons and charging fees therefor in the territory wherein appellant was the public weigher. The petition did not charge that the defendants were factors or commission merchants, or persons engaged in a similar business. The trial court, following Whitfield v. Terrell Compress Co., 62 S. W. Rep., 117 and Galt v. Holder, 75 S. W. Rep., 568, held that on account of the omission referred to, the petition failed to state a cause of action and sustained a general demurrer interposed to it. That ruling is assigned as error, appellant contending that the statute upon which the suit is based was properly construed by this court in Davidson v. Sadler, 23 Texas Civ. App., 601. That case seems to be in conflict with the two latter cases just referred to, in both of which the Supreme Court refused applications for writs of error. The question involved in this case was the only question involved in Galt v. Holder, supra, and the action of the Supreme Court in refusing to grant a writ of error elevates that decision to the dignity of final authority. Hence we hold that the trial court ruled correctly when it sustained the general demurrer to the plaintiff’s petition. Judgment affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

Related

Liles v. Thompson
85 S.W.2d 784 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1935)
Gulf Production Co. v. Spear
76 S.W.2d 558 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1934)
McCraw v. Sewell
20 S.W.2d 235 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1929)
First Nat. Bank of Huntington Beach v. Horn
2 S.W.2d 333 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1927)
Stark v. Brown
210 S.W. 811 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1919)
McFaddin v. Johnson
180 S.W. 306 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1915)
Cattlemens Trust Co. of Ft. Worth v. Willis
179 S.W. 1115 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1915)
Perry v. Carlisle
151 S.W. 1155 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1912)
Paschal v. Inman
151 S.W. 569 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1912)
Borden v. Patterson
111 S.W. 182 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1908)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
97 S.W. 707, 43 Tex. Civ. App. 417, 1906 Tex. App. LEXIS 114, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gray-v-eleazer-texapp-1906.