Pioneer Land & Loan Co. of Martin County v. Ebersol

Court of Appeals of Texas

Pioneer Land & Loan Co. of Martin County v. Ebersol

226 S.W. 423, 1920 Tex. App. LEXIS 1129

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedDecember 9, 1920

DocketNo. 1147.

StatusPublished

This text of 226 S.W. 423 (Pioneer Land & Loan Co. of Martin County v. Ebersol) 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

Pioneer Land & Loan Co. of Martin County v. Ebersol, 226 S.W. 423, 1920 Tex. App. LEXIS 1129 (Tex. Ct. App. 1920).

Pincite

Opinion

HARPER, C. J.

Appellants brought this suit against appellee for $538.92, commissions for procuring a purchaser of stock of merchandise belonging to appellee, as agents. Tried before the court without a jury. Judgment for defendant.

The court found as a fact that the plaintiffs were not the efficient procuring cause of the sale. .The assignments of error are simply attacks upon the findings of the trial judge. We find that the evidence is sufficient to sustain the findings and judgment, and for that reason the cause is affirmed. This was a question for determination by the trial court. Ford v. Cole et al., 195 S. W. 661; Bancroft v. Emerson et ah, 194 S. W. 991. Where, as in this case, there is evidence to support the findings of the trial court, this court is without power to disturb it. Am. Surety Co. v. Hardwick, 186 S. W. 804. This is true though this court might reach a different conclusion. Marse & Co. v. Flockinger, 189 S. W. 1017.

The assignments are overruled, and cause affirmed.

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

HARPER, C. J.

Appellants brought this suit against appellee for $538.92, commissions for procuring a purchaser of stock of merchandise belonging to appellee, as agents. Tried before the court without a jury. Judgment for defendant.

The court found as a fact that the plaintiffs were not the efficient procuring cause of the sale. .The assignments of error are simply attacks upon the findings of the trial judge. We find that the evidence is sufficient to sustain the findings and judgment, and for that reason the cause is affirmed. This was a question for determination by the trial court. Ford v. Cole et al., 195 S. W. 661; Bancroft v. Emerson et ah, 194 S. W. 991. Where, as in this case, there is evidence to support the findings of the trial court, this court is without power to disturb it. Am. Surety Co. v. Hardwick, 186 S. W. 804. This is true though this court might reach a different conclusion. Marse & Co. v. Flockinger, 189 S. W. 1017.

The assignments are overruled, and cause affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

226 S.W. 423, 1920 Tex. App. LEXIS 1129, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pioneer-land-loan-co-of-martin-county-v-ebersol-texapp-1920.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack