Jeans v. Liquid Carbonic Co.

Court of Appeals of Texas

Jeans v. Liquid Carbonic Co.

178 S.W. 1020, 1915 Tex. App. LEXIS 898

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedJune 30, 1915

DocketNo. 5394.

StatusPublished

This text of 178 S.W. 1020 (Jeans v. Liquid Carbonic Co.) 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

Jeans v. Liquid Carbonic Co., 178 S.W. 1020, 1915 Tex. App. LEXIS 898 (Tex. Ct. App. 1915).

Pincite

Opinion

JENKINS, J.

A motion to retax the costs in this case has lead us to re-examine appellant’s motion for a rehehring which has been heretofore overruled by us. We are not satisfied that we did not commit error in overruling said motion. The briefs of the parties filed in this court have been lost, for which reason we are not able to determine which of the grounds set forth in appellant’s motion for a new trial in the county court were copied in his brief as assignments of error in this court. Our original opinion was based on the theory that the county court was without jurisdiction to try the case, for which reason we did not examine the merits of the case.

For the 'reasons stated, our judgment overruling appellant’s motion for a rehearing herein is set aside on our motion, and the same is continued until the next term of this court, to give the parties hereto an opportunity to file copies of their briefs in this court.

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

JENKINS, J.

A motion to retax the costs in this case has lead us to re-examine appellant’s motion for a rehehring which has been heretofore overruled by us. We are not satisfied that we did not commit error in overruling said motion. The briefs of the parties filed in this court have been lost, for which reason we are not able to determine which of the grounds set forth in appellant’s motion for a new trial in the county court were copied in his brief as assignments of error in this court. Our original opinion was based on the theory that the county court was without jurisdiction to try the case, for which reason we did not examine the merits of the case.

For the 'reasons stated, our judgment overruling appellant’s motion for a rehearing herein is set aside on our motion, and the same is continued until the next term of this court, to give the parties hereto an opportunity to file copies of their briefs in this court.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

178 S.W. 1020, 1915 Tex. App. LEXIS 898, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jeans-v-liquid-carbonic-co-texapp-1915.