Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Co. v. Howell

30 S.W. 102, 87 Tex. 429, 1895 Tex. LEXIS 361
CourtTexas Supreme Court
DecidedJanuary 17, 1895
DocketNo. 537.
StatusPublished
Cited by15 cases

This text of 30 S.W. 102 (Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Co. v. Howell) 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
Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Co. v. Howell, 30 S.W. 102, 87 Tex. 429, 1895 Tex. LEXIS 361 (Tex. 1895).

Opinion

GAINES, Chief Justice.

In this case the applicant’s first assignment of error in the Court of Civil Appeals was as follows: “The court erred in overruling defendant’s application for a continuance.” *430 That court held, that this assignment was too general to require consideration. 'We can not concur in this conclusion. The assignment complains of a specific ruling of the trial court, and we therefore think it sufficient. In our opinion, it would serve no useful purpose to require greater particularity in an assignment of this character. But we also think that the ruling of the trial court, which was complained of in the assignment, was correct.

We are also of the opinion, that none of the other grounds of error alleged in the application are well taken. The writ is therefore refiised.

Application refused.

Delivered January 17, 1895.

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

Related

Green v. Sutton
452 S.W.2d 200 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1970)
Reichmuth v. Adler
155 S.W.2d 181 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1941)
Lang v. Harwood
145 S.W.2d 945 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1940)
Lambert Ex Rel. Lambert v. Jones
98 S.W.2d 752 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1936)
Wright Ex Rel. Wright v. Hannan & Everitt, Inc
81 S.W.2d 303 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1935)
Kelly v. Robinson
262 F. 695 (E.D. Missouri, 1920)
Cody v. Lusk
171 S.W. 624 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1914)
Clark v. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co.
194 F. 505 (W.D. Missouri, 1912)
Morgan v. Oronogo Circle Mining Co.
141 S.W. 735 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1911)
Harris v. Kansas City Southern Railway Co.
124 S.W. 576 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1910)
Carson v. Quinn
105 S.W. 1088 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1907)
Garaci v. Hill O'Meara Construction Co.
102 S.W. 594 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1907)
Obermeyer v. Logeman Chair Manufacturing Co.
96 S.W. 673 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1906)
Zeigenmeyer v. Goetz Lime & Cement Co.
88 S.W. 139 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1905)
St. Louis Cordage Co. v. Miller
126 F. 495 (Eighth Circuit, 1903)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
30 S.W. 102, 87 Tex. 429, 1895 Tex. LEXIS 361, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/missouri-kansas-texas-railway-co-v-howell-tex-1895.