Lyon-Gray Lumber Co. v. Dunbar

Court of Appeals of Texas

Lyon-Gray Lumber Co. v. Dunbar

158 S.W. 1167, 1913 Tex. App. LEXIS 1324

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedJune 19, 1913

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 158 S.W. 1167 (Lyon-Gray Lumber Co. v. Dunbar) 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

Lyon-Gray Lumber Co. v. Dunbar, 158 S.W. 1167, 1913 Tex. App. LEXIS 1324 (Tex. Ct. App. 1913).

Pincite

Opinion

WILLSON, C. J.

By its suit against appel-lee, cómmenced in a justice court, appellant sought a recovery of $92.80 it claimed appellee owed it. By his cross-action in that suit ap-pellee sought a recovery of $150 against appellant. The trial in that court resulted in a judgment in appellee’s favor for $10 and costs. Appellant prosecuted an appeal to the county court, and there, on October 14, 1912, recovered judgment against appellee for $55 and the costs of both courts. Afterwards, on motion of ap-pellee, the judgment rendered by the county court was so reformed as to adjudge the costs of that court against appellant. The reason why the court thought the costs ought to be otherwise adjudged than as provided for by the statute (article 2047, R. S. 1911) was not stated on the record, as required by article 2048, R. S. 1911. Therefore the judgment of the county court as reformed by it must be reversed (Nail v. Wolfe City National Bank, 158 S. W. 1166, decided to-day by this court). Judgment will be here rendered that appellant recover of appellee the sum of $55, interest thereon from October 14, 1912, and the costs of the justice court, the county court, and this court.

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

WILLSON, C. J.

By its suit against appel-lee, cómmenced in a justice court, appellant sought a recovery of $92.80 it claimed appellee owed it. By his cross-action in that suit ap-pellee sought a recovery of $150 against appellant. The trial in that court resulted in a judgment in appellee’s favor for $10 and costs. Appellant prosecuted an appeal to the county court, and there, on October 14, 1912, recovered judgment against appellee for $55 and the costs of both courts. Afterwards, on motion of ap-pellee, the judgment rendered by the county court was so reformed as to adjudge the costs of that court against appellant. The reason why the court thought the costs ought to be otherwise adjudged than as provided for by the statute (article 2047, R. S. 1911) was not stated on the record, as required by article 2048, R. S. 1911. Therefore the judgment of the county court as reformed by it must be reversed (Nail v. Wolfe City National Bank, 158 S. W. 1166, decided to-day by this court). Judgment will be here rendered that appellant recover of appellee the sum of $55, interest thereon from October 14, 1912, and the costs of the justice court, the county court, and this court.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

158 S.W. 1167, 1913 Tex. App. LEXIS 1324, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lyon-gray-lumber-co-v-dunbar-texapp-1913.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack