Schaub v. Rucker Heartsill

Court of Appeals of Texas

Schaub v. Rucker Heartsill

203 S.W. 939, 1918 Tex. App. LEXIS 523

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedMay 25, 1918

DocketNo. 7982.

StatusPublished

This text of 203 S.W. 939 (Schaub v. Rucker Heartsill) 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

Schaub v. Rucker Heartsill, 203 S.W. 939, 1918 Tex. App. LEXIS 523 (Tex. Ct. App. 1918).

Pincite

Opinion

RAINEY, O. J.

This is an appeal from a judgment in favor of appellees for the sum of $252, with interest at the rate of 6 per cent, per annum from date of judgment.

There are several assignments of error presented by appellant, complaining of the action of the trial court in sustaining objections to testimony, in refusing to give special instructions requested by appellant, in giving special instruction requested by appel-lees, and that the judgment is contrary to and not wárranted by the evidence. We have given each assignment due consideration, and conclude that no reversible error is contained in the record. The case was tried before a jury, and the evidence warranted the verdict. The court’s charge was correct, and presented the necessary issues. The charges requested by appellant that were correct were either given or the principle embodied in the main charge. The testimony rejected was not prejudicial to appellant.

The principles announced in Bellis v. Hann, 157 S. W. 427, govern this case, and the judgment is affirmed.

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

RAINEY, O. J.

This is an appeal from a judgment in favor of appellees for the sum of $252, with interest at the rate of 6 per cent, per annum from date of judgment.

There are several assignments of error presented by appellant, complaining of the action of the trial court in sustaining objections to testimony, in refusing to give special instructions requested by appellant, in giving special instruction requested by appel-lees, and that the judgment is contrary to and not wárranted by the evidence. We have given each assignment due consideration, and conclude that no reversible error is contained in the record. The case was tried before a jury, and the evidence warranted the verdict. The court’s charge was correct, and presented the necessary issues. The charges requested by appellant that were correct were either given or the principle embodied in the main charge. The testimony rejected was not prejudicial to appellant.

The principles announced in Bellis v. Hann, 157 S. W. 427, govern this case, and the judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

203 S.W. 939, 1918 Tex. App. LEXIS 523, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schaub-v-rucker-heartsill-texapp-1918.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack