Holland v. Brown McFarland

Court of Appeals of Texas

Holland v. Brown McFarland

152 S.W. 1195, 1912 Tex. App. LEXIS 1378

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedSeptember 11, 1912

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 152 S.W. 1195 (Holland v. Brown McFarland) 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

Holland v. Brown McFarland, 152 S.W. 1195, 1912 Tex. App. LEXIS 1378 (Tex. Ct. App. 1912).

Pincite

Opinion

HODGES, J.

This is a motion to affirm on certificate under the provisions of article 1016 of the Revised Civil Statutes of 1895. The certificate of the clerk shows that the appeal bond was filed in the court below on *1196 January 29, 1912. The motion to affirm, together with the certificate of the clerk, was filed with the clerk of this court September 11, 1912. The appeal, which was perfected in the court helow, was returnable to the last term of this court, which expired on the first Monday in July. The motion to affirm therefore comes too late. The following authorities sufficiently state the grounds: Laughlin v. Dabney, 86 Tex. 120, 24 S. W. 259; Western Union Tel. Co. v. Wofford, 32 Tex. Cr. R. 427, 72 S. W. 620, 74 S. W. 943; Pickett v. Mead, 25 S. W. 654; Berry v. Blankenship, 30 Tex. 380.

The motion to affirm is refused.

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

HODGES, J.

This is a motion to affirm on certificate under the provisions of article 1016 of the Revised Civil Statutes of 1895. The certificate of the clerk shows that the appeal bond was filed in the court below on *1196 January 29, 1912. The motion to affirm, together with the certificate of the clerk, was filed with the clerk of this court September 11, 1912. The appeal, which was perfected in the court helow, was returnable to the last term of this court, which expired on the first Monday in July. The motion to affirm therefore comes too late. The following authorities sufficiently state the grounds: Laughlin v. Dabney, 86 Tex. 120, 24 S. W. 259; Western Union Tel. Co. v. Wofford, 32 Tex. Cr. R. 427, 72 S. W. 620, 74 S. W. 943; Pickett v. Mead, 25 S. W. 654; Berry v. Blankenship, 30 Tex. 380.

The motion to affirm is refused.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

152 S.W. 1195, 1912 Tex. App. LEXIS 1378, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/holland-v-brown-mcfarland-texapp-1912.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack