Richards v. Holford

Court of Appeals of Texas

Richards v. Holford

94 S.W. 911, 43 Tex. Civ. App. 417, 1906 Tex. App. LEXIS 113

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedJune 13, 1906

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 94 S.W. 911 (Richards v. Holford) 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

Richards v. Holford, 94 S.W. 911, 43 Tex. Civ. App. 417, 1906 Tex. App. LEXIS 113 (Tex. Ct. App. 1906).

Pincite

Opinion

EIDSON, Associate Justice.

This is an appeal from a County Court judgment. The questions raised by the assignments of error do not require extended discussion. If appellee, in consideration of the agreement of appellant to furnish him with State and county license to pursue the occupation of retail liquor dealer, paid him the amounts alleged in his petition, and appellant failed to comply with such agreement, he would be liable to appellee for the amount he paid him, although appellee may have pursued the occupation without the license and not been disturbed. Appellee’s right to recover was based upon appellant’s failure to furnish the license, and it was unimportant that the officers of the law did not interfere with his pursuit of the occupation. The testimony was sufficient to support the judgment of the court.

All of appellant’s assignments of error are overruled and the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

EIDSON, Associate Justice.

This is an appeal from a County Court judgment. The questions raised by the assignments of error do not require extended discussion. If appellee, in consideration of the agreement of appellant to furnish him with State and county license to pursue the occupation of retail liquor dealer, paid him the amounts alleged in his petition, and appellant failed to comply with such agreement, he would be liable to appellee for the amount he paid him, although appellee may have pursued the occupation without the license and not been disturbed. Appellee’s right to recover was based upon appellant’s failure to furnish the license, and it was unimportant that the officers of the law did not interfere with his pursuit of the occupation. The testimony was sufficient to support the judgment of the court.

All of appellant’s assignments of error are overruled and the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

94 S.W. 911, 43 Tex. Civ. App. 417, 1906 Tex. App. LEXIS 113, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/richards-v-holford-texapp-1906.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack