Panhandle Motors Co. v. Foster
This text of 245 S.W. 269 (Panhandle Motors Co. v. Foster) 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.
Opinion
The appellee has filed no brief, and we accept the statement of the case as made by appellant. Rule 40 (142 S. W. xiv) for Courts of Civil Appeals.
It appears that áppellant’s attorney failed to he present at the trial of the case, because of tbe fact that he was informed by the clerk of the court in which the case was pending that during the attorney’s absence the cause had been continued and the jury discharged for the term. The attorney was warranted in relying on information received from this source, and it justified his *270 failure to be present when the case was called for trial on the next morning. Fitzgerald v. Wygal, 24 Tex. Civ. App. 372, 59 S. W. 621. Under the circumstances we are of the opinion that the motion for new trial should have been granted.
Reversed and remanded.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
245 S.W. 269, 1922 Tex. App. LEXIS 1412, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/panhandle-motors-co-v-foster-texapp-1922.