Lancaster v. Crosby

Court of Appeals of Texas

Lancaster v. Crosby

263 S.W. 646, 1924 Tex. App. LEXIS 1109

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedJune 10, 1924

DocketNo. 2883.

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 263 S.W. 646 (Lancaster v. Crosby) 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

Lancaster v. Crosby, 263 S.W. 646, 1924 Tex. App. LEXIS 1109 (Tex. Ct. App. 1924).

Pincite

Opinion

WILLSON, O. J.

(after stating the facts as above). [1, 2] In the preparation of their brief appellants disregarded the requirement of rule 31 for the government of Courts of Civil Appeals, that a brief shall contain “a clear and accurate statement of the record bearing upon the respective propositions, with a reference to the pages of the record,” and therefore are not entitled to have their ’contentions here considered. Engelman v. Anderson (Tex. Civ. App.) 243 S. W. *648 728; Equipment Co. v. Luse (Tex. Civ. App.) 250 S. W. 1104; Rubber Co. v. Waldman (Tex. Civ. App.) 257 S. W. 929; Holt v. Uvalde Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 258 S. W. 285; Lange v. Lawrence (Tex. Civ. App.) 259 S. W. 261. However, we have read the record, including the testimony in the statement of facts, and considered same with reference to the grounds of the objection to the judgment, and have concluded that no reason, legal or otherwise, why it should be set aside, has been pointed. out. Therefore it will be affirmed.

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

WILLSON, O. J.

(after stating the facts as above). [1, 2] In the preparation of their brief appellants disregarded the requirement of rule 31 for the government of Courts of Civil Appeals, that a brief shall contain “a clear and accurate statement of the record bearing upon the respective propositions, with a reference to the pages of the record,” and therefore are not entitled to have their ’contentions here considered. Engelman v. Anderson (Tex. Civ. App.) 243 S. W. *648 728; Equipment Co. v. Luse (Tex. Civ. App.) 250 S. W. 1104; Rubber Co. v. Waldman (Tex. Civ. App.) 257 S. W. 929; Holt v. Uvalde Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 258 S. W. 285; Lange v. Lawrence (Tex. Civ. App.) 259 S. W. 261. However, we have read the record, including the testimony in the statement of facts, and considered same with reference to the grounds of the objection to the judgment, and have concluded that no reason, legal or otherwise, why it should be set aside, has been pointed. out. Therefore it will be affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

263 S.W. 646, 1924 Tex. App. LEXIS 1109, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lancaster-v-crosby-texapp-1924.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack