Richards v. Calley

Texas Commission of Appeals

Richards v. Calley

25 S.W.2d 329

CourtTexas Commission of Appeals

DecidedMarch 12, 1930

DocketMotion No. 8990; 1274-5317

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 25 S.W.2d 329 (Richards v. Calley) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Texas Commission of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Richards v. Calley, 25 S.W.2d 329 (Tex. Super. Ct. 1930).

Pincite

Opinion

CRITZ, J.

This case is now before us on motion for rehearing filed by the appellant, J. J. Richards. Our original opinion contains the following holding:

“It is not -necessary to set out the contract in this opinion, but we will say that it is one, by its terms,.susceptible of specific ■performance.”

On motion for rehearing, it is pointed out to us by -appellant that the question as to whether the contract is susceptible of specific performance is one of the questions of law presented to the Court of Civil Appeals for its determination by appellant, but that such issue is not included in the questions certified to the Supreme Court. We find -this to be true, and for that reason withdraw the part of the opinion above quoted. This is the only relief prayed for in the motion for rehearing.

For the reasons stated, we recommend that the motion for rehearing filed herein by the appellant, J. J. Richards, be granted, and the portion of the original opinion above quoted be withdrawn, but that the questions certified stand answered as originally recommended by us.

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

CRITZ, J.

This case is now before us on motion for rehearing filed by the appellant, J. J. Richards. Our original opinion contains the following holding:

“It is not -necessary to set out the contract in this opinion, but we will say that it is one, by its terms,.susceptible of specific ■performance.”

On motion for rehearing, it is pointed out to us by -appellant that the question as to whether the contract is susceptible of specific performance is one of the questions of law presented to the Court of Civil Appeals for its determination by appellant, but that such issue is not included in the questions certified to the Supreme Court. We find -this to be true, and for that reason withdraw the part of the opinion above quoted. This is the only relief prayed for in the motion for rehearing.

For the reasons stated, we recommend that the motion for rehearing filed herein by the appellant, J. J. Richards, be granted, and the portion of the original opinion above quoted be withdrawn, but that the questions certified stand answered as originally recommended by us.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

25 S.W.2d 329, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/richards-v-calley-texcommnapp-1930.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack