Major v. Dannelly

220 S.W. 1110, 1920 Tex. App. LEXIS 414
CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedApril 14, 1920
DocketNo. 1626.
StatusPublished

This text of 220 S.W. 1110 (Major v. Dannelly) 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
Major v. Dannelly, 220 S.W. 1110, 1920 Tex. App. LEXIS 414 (Tex. Ct. App. 1920).

Opinion

BOYCE, J.

After the appellant had filed a motion to dismiss the appeal in this case, the appellee filed his briefs, asking for an affirmance, with damages for delay. The plaintiff in the court below, appellant here, recovered nothing in the lower court. There is no basis for the assessment of damages for delay. R. S. art. 1627; Hicks v. Murphy, 162 S. W. 925. Under the circumstances it can make no material difference to appellees whether the judgment be affirmed or the appeal dismissed.

We will therefore not take the time to examine into the questions of law necessary to determine whether there was any error in the judgment, but will sustain the appellant’s motion and dismiss the appeal.

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

Related

Hicks v. Murphy
162 S.W. 925 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1913)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
220 S.W. 1110, 1920 Tex. App. LEXIS 414, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/major-v-dannelly-texapp-1920.