Mineola Compress Co. v. Farmers' State Bank of Mineola

Court of Appeals of Texas

Mineola Compress Co. v. Farmers' State Bank of Mineola

240 S.W. 1118, 1922 Tex. App. LEXIS 786

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedMay 4, 1922

DocketNo. 2568.

StatusPublished

This text of 240 S.W. 1118 (Mineola Compress Co. v. Farmers' State Bank of Mineola) 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

Mineola Compress Co. v. Farmers' State Bank of Mineola, 240 S.W. 1118, 1922 Tex. App. LEXIS 786 (Tex. Ct. App. 1922).

Pincite

Opinion

LEVY, J.

The appellee brought the suit against the Mineóla Compress Company, a corporation, and Rash, Brin & Co., a copartnership, for the conversion of five bales of cotton. The defendants plead general denial. In a trial before the court without a jury, a judgment was entered in favor of the plaintiff. After a careful consideration of the record, we conclude that the appellants’ contention,should be sustained 'that the evidence is insufficient to support a judgment for conversion. It is fully established that the appellee has lost the five bales of cotton, but the evidence does not sufficiently show that these appellants converted it.. In view of another trial, the evidence is not discussed or further set out. The judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded.

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

LEVY, J.

The appellee brought the suit against the Mineóla Compress Company, a corporation, and Rash, Brin & Co., a copartnership, for the conversion of five bales of cotton. The defendants plead general denial. In a trial before the court without a jury, a judgment was entered in favor of the plaintiff. After a careful consideration of the record, we conclude that the appellants’ contention,should be sustained 'that the evidence is insufficient to support a judgment for conversion. It is fully established that the appellee has lost the five bales of cotton, but the evidence does not sufficiently show that these appellants converted it.. In view of another trial, the evidence is not discussed or further set out. The judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

240 S.W. 1118, 1922 Tex. App. LEXIS 786, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mineola-compress-co-v-farmers-state-bank-of-mineola-texapp-1922.