Merchants Cotton Oil Co. v. Acme Gin Co.

Texas Supreme Court

Merchants Cotton Oil Co. v. Acme Gin Co.

42 S.W.2d 777, 121 Tex. 91, 1931 Tex. LEXIS 215

Texas Supreme Court·Decided October 28, 1931·No. Application No. 18,401·Published·Cited by 7 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The only question presented by the application for writ of error is one of admissibility of evidence. Since the evidence excluded does not necessarily control the case, nor present a question of substantive law, or any other question which the statute gives us the power to review, we are compelled to dismiss the application for want of jurisdiction. Browder v. Memphis Ind. School Dist., 107 Texas, 535, 180 S. W., 1077. However, we have examined the record on the subject of the admissibility of the telegram involved, and by dismissing this application we do not mean to indicate an agreement with the Court of Civil Appeals that the message was properly excluded.

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

PER CURIAM.

The only question presented by the application for writ of error is one of admissibility of evidence. Since the evidence excluded does not necessarily control the case, nor present a question of substantive law, or any other question which the statute gives us the power to review, we are compelled to dismiss the application for want of jurisdiction. Browder v. Memphis Ind. School Dist., 107 Texas, 535, 180 S. W., 1077. However, we have examined the record on the subject of the admissibility of the telegram involved, and by dismissing this application we do not mean to indicate an agreement with the Court of Civil Appeals that the message was properly excluded.

Merchants Cotton Oil Co. v. Acme Gin Co., 42 S.W.2d 777, 121 Tex. 91, 1931 Tex. LEXIS 215 (Tex. 1931).

Pincite

42 S.W.2d 777 (Merchants Cotton Oil Co. v. Acme Gin Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related