Letcher v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas

Letcher v. State

134 S.W.2d 341

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedNovember 10, 1939

DocketNo. 2030.

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 134 S.W.2d 341 (Letcher v. State) 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

Letcher v. State, 134 S.W.2d 341 (Tex. Ct. App. 1939).

Pincite

Opinion

GRISSOM, justice.

This suit was instituted by the State of Texas, under Art. 666 — 29, Vernon’s Tex. Pen.Code 1936, to enjoin Harold Letcher from selling,' etc., intoxicating liquor in a building owned by him in Mitchell County; to declare the building a common nuisance, and for an order closing the place for a period of one year, or until the owner should execute a bond as required by law.

Upon a trial on the merits, judgment was rendered for the plaintiff as prayed for and in accordance with the aforesaid statute. Defendant has appealed and by super-sedeas bond has suspended enforcement of the judgment pending appeal.

Appellant has filed no brief. Appellee has filed a brief and appeared by counsel. We have examined appellee’s brief and the judgment of the court. We find the judgment is such as can be affirmed under the view presented by appellee, and that the record as presented shows no reversible error. Without examining the record further, in accordance with the Courts of Civil Appeals Rule No. 39, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. Guaranty Old Line Life Ins. Co. v. Leonard, Tex.Civ.App., 109 S.W.2d 1091.

Affirmed.

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

GRISSOM, justice.

This suit was instituted by the State of Texas, under Art. 666 — 29, Vernon’s Tex. Pen.Code 1936, to enjoin Harold Letcher from selling,' etc., intoxicating liquor in a building owned by him in Mitchell County; to declare the building a common nuisance, and for an order closing the place for a period of one year, or until the owner should execute a bond as required by law.

Upon a trial on the merits, judgment was rendered for the plaintiff as prayed for and in accordance with the aforesaid statute. Defendant has appealed and by super-sedeas bond has suspended enforcement of the judgment pending appeal.

Appellant has filed no brief. Appellee has filed a brief and appeared by counsel. We have examined appellee’s brief and the judgment of the court. We find the judgment is such as can be affirmed under the view presented by appellee, and that the record as presented shows no reversible error. Without examining the record further, in accordance with the Courts of Civil Appeals Rule No. 39, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. Guaranty Old Line Life Ins. Co. v. Leonard, Tex.Civ.App., 109 S.W.2d 1091.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

134 S.W.2d 341, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/letcher-v-state-texapp-1939.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack