Mohr v. Cochran

49 S.W. 677, 20 Tex. Civ. App. 183, 1899 Tex. App. LEXIS 120
Court of Appeals of Texas·Decided January 19, 1899·Published·Cited by 9 cases

Opinion

*184 PLEASANTS, Associate Justice.

The motion of defendants to strike out the transcript in this cause, because the same purports to be the record of two separate and distinct suits, with different parties, suing for the recovery of different lands, and in which suits separate judgments were rendered, should, in our opinion, be sustained. It appears from the record that the parties to the two suits agreed that they might be tried together in the lower court; but this is not an agreement, conceding that it was competent for the parties to make such an agreement, which, to say the least, is questionable, that the two causes might be tried together upon appeal in this court.

The motion is granted, and it is ordered that the transcript be stricken from the files of this court.

Motion granted.

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

Mohr v. Cochran, 49 S.W. 677, 20 Tex. Civ. App. 183, 1899 Tex. App. LEXIS 120 (Tex. Ct. App. 1899).

49 S.W. 677 (Mohr v. Cochran) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Bay v. Mecom
393 S.W.2d 819 (Texas Supreme Court, 1965)
Bay v. Mecom
387 S.W.2d 482 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1965)
Home Telephone &. Electric Co. v. Branton
7 S.W.2d 627 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1928)
Panhandle & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Daldorf
266 S.W. 208 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1924)
Harper v. Stumpff
1921 OK 430 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1921)
Peterson v. City of Houston
224 S.W. 580 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1920)
Moore v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co
1910 OK 242 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1910)