Gulp, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. McGinnis

Court of Appeals of Texas

Gulp, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. McGinnis

158 S.W. 1199

DecidedJune 4, 1913

StatusPublished

This text of 158 S.W. 1199 (Gulp, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. McGinnis) 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

Gulp, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. McGinnis, 158 S.W. 1199 (Tex. Ct. App. 1913).

Pincite

Opinion

RICE, J. _

This case was affirmed at the last _ term of this court, and motion for rehearing overruled (see 147 S. W. 1188), and writ of error refused by the Supreme Court. Thereafter a writ of error was granted by the Supreme Court of the United States, since which time said court, by an opinion delivered April 7. 1913 (228 U. S. 173, 33 Sup. Ct. 426, 57 D. Ed. —), has reversed and remanded the case to this court for further proceedings consistent with its opinion therein. While said opinion only held that there was error in our holding in one particular, still it is clearly inferable therefrom that it was the intention of that court to reverse the entire case, suggesting that the evidence might be different on the issues at the next trial, for which reason we conceive it to be our duty to conform to such ruling, and to direct that the whole case be reversed for another trial de novo; and it is so ordered. Reversed and remanded.

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

RICE, J. _

This case was affirmed at the last _ term of this court, and motion for rehearing overruled (see 147 S. W. 1188), and writ of error refused by the Supreme Court. Thereafter a writ of error was granted by the Supreme Court of the United States, since which time said court, by an opinion delivered April 7. 1913 (228 U. S. 173, 33 Sup. Ct. 426, 57 D. Ed. —), has reversed and remanded the case to this court for further proceedings consistent with its opinion therein. While said opinion only held that there was error in our holding in one particular, still it is clearly inferable therefrom that it was the intention of that court to reverse the entire case, suggesting that the evidence might be different on the issues at the next trial, for which reason we conceive it to be our duty to conform to such ruling, and to direct that the whole case be reversed for another trial de novo; and it is so ordered. Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

158 S.W. 1199, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gulp-c-s-f-ry-co-v-mcginnis-texapp-1913.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack