Manning v. King

Texas Supreme Court

Manning v. King

514 S.W.2d 899

CourtTexas Supreme Court

DecidedOctober 30, 1974

DocketB-4609

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 514 S.W.2d 899 (Manning v. King) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Texas Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Manning v. King, 514 S.W.2d 899 (Tex. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The Court of Civil Appeals has reversed and remanded the judgment of the trial court on two grounds: (1) that the trial court filed his findings of fact and conclusions of law so late that Respondent could not request additional findings and conclusions under Rule 298, Rules of Civil Procedure; and (2) that the trial court erred in basing his findings, conclusions and judgment as to the location of the boundary line between the parties’ respective tracts on location of the junior survey without regard to the location of the senior survey and without evidence that the adjoining senior survey could not be located on the ground. 507 S.W.2d 626. The application for writ of error is refused, no reversible error. Our action is not to be interpreted as approving that portion of the opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals relating to Rules 296-299 or their application as a basis for the reversal and remand. None of the parties complained of the trial court’s action with respect to the findings of fact and conclusions of law, and there was no point before the Court of Civil Appeals on this phase of the case.

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

PER CURIAM.

The Court of Civil Appeals has reversed and remanded the judgment of the trial court on two grounds: (1) that the trial court filed his findings of fact and conclusions of law so late that Respondent could not request additional findings and conclusions under Rule 298, Rules of Civil Procedure; and (2) that the trial court erred in basing his findings, conclusions and judgment as to the location of the boundary line between the parties’ respective tracts on location of the junior survey without regard to the location of the senior survey and without evidence that the adjoining senior survey could not be located on the ground. 507 S.W.2d 626. The application for writ of error is refused, no reversible error. Our action is not to be interpreted as approving that portion of the opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals relating to Rules 296-299 or their application as a basis for the reversal and remand. None of the parties complained of the trial court’s action with respect to the findings of fact and conclusions of law, and there was no point before the Court of Civil Appeals on this phase of the case.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

514 S.W.2d 899, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/manning-v-king-tex-1974.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack