Midland Rubber Co. v. Waldman

Court of Appeals of Texas

Midland Rubber Co. v. Waldman

257 S.W. 929

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedJanuary 9, 1924

DocketNo. 1032.

StatusPublished

This text of 257 S.W. 929 (Midland Rubber Co. v. Waldman) 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

Midland Rubber Co. v. Waldman, 257 S.W. 929 (Tex. Ct. App. 1924).

Pincite

Opinion

HIGHTOWER, C. J.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the county court of Hardin county, denying to appellant recovery for the value of certain merchandise, which appellant alleged was sold and delivered by it to appellee, amounting to $170.50. This is the second appeal of this case to this court, the judgment being adverse to appellant on both trials.

A full statement of the nature of the suit will be found in our opinion bn the first appeal, reported in 246 S. W. 109.

On this appeal, counsel for appellee makes strenuous objections to the consideration by this court of any of appellant’s contentions for reversal, and moves to strike appellant’s brief for failure to comply with the rules of briefing causes in this court, especially rules 29, 30, and 32. Upon consideration of this matter, it is manifest that counsel for ap-' pellant has wholly failed to comply with the rules for briefing causes in this court, and therefore the contentions for reversal are not considered.

There is no fundamental error, as suggested by appellant, and the judgment is ordered affirmed.

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

HIGHTOWER, C. J.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the county court of Hardin county, denying to appellant recovery for the value of certain merchandise, which appellant alleged was sold and delivered by it to appellee, amounting to $170.50. This is the second appeal of this case to this court, the judgment being adverse to appellant on both trials.

A full statement of the nature of the suit will be found in our opinion bn the first appeal, reported in 246 S. W. 109.

On this appeal, counsel for appellee makes strenuous objections to the consideration by this court of any of appellant’s contentions for reversal, and moves to strike appellant’s brief for failure to comply with the rules of briefing causes in this court, especially rules 29, 30, and 32. Upon consideration of this matter, it is manifest that counsel for ap-' pellant has wholly failed to comply with the rules for briefing causes in this court, and therefore the contentions for reversal are not considered.

There is no fundamental error, as suggested by appellant, and the judgment is ordered affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

257 S.W. 929, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/midland-rubber-co-v-waldman-texapp-1924.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack