Linden Lumber Co. v. Johnston

Court of Appeals of Texas

Linden Lumber Co. v. Johnston

139 S.W.2d 292, 1940 Tex. App. LEXIS 240

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Linden Lumber Co. v. Johnston. Read the opinion of the Court — 1939 Tex. App. LEXIS 1095 →

Court of Appeals of Texas·Decided April 5, 1940·No. Nos. 13880, 13939.·Published

Opinion

BROWN, Justice.

This appellee has filed a motion before us in general statutory language, saying that he is a pauper and unable to pay the costs or any part thereof, or to give security therefor.

The motion is contested and our attention called to the sworn testimony of this litigant, on the trial of the'cause, in which he testified that he is agent for the “Sante Fe” Railroad at Farmersville, Texas, and has been such for 21 years, and that his salary is $248 per month.

We do not think the litigant is a pauper and are of opinion that he cannot take advantage of any statute enuring to the benefit of a pauper.

The' motion is overruled.

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

BROWN, Justice.

This appellee has filed a motion before us in general statutory language, saying that he is a pauper and unable to pay the costs or any part thereof, or to give security therefor.

The motion is contested and our attention called to the sworn testimony of this litigant, on the trial of the'cause, in which he testified that he is agent for the “Sante Fe” Railroad at Farmersville, Texas, and has been such for 21 years, and that his salary is $248 per month.

We do not think the litigant is a pauper and are of opinion that he cannot take advantage of any statute enuring to the benefit of a pauper.

The' motion is overruled.

Linden Lumber Co. v. Johnston, 139 S.W.2d 292, 1940 Tex. App. LEXIS 240 (Tex. Ct. App. 1940).

Pincite

139 S.W.2d 292 (Linden Lumber Co. v. Johnston) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.