W. L. Haynes v. J. M. Radford Grocery

Court of Appeals of Texas

W. L. Haynes v. J. M. Radford Grocery

16 S.W.2d 1118, 1929 Tex. App. LEXIS 558

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedApril 12, 1929

DocketNo. 488.

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 16 S.W.2d 1118 (W. L. Haynes v. J. M. Radford Grocery) 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

W. L. Haynes v. J. M. Radford Grocery, 16 S.W.2d 1118, 1929 Tex. App. LEXIS 558 (Tex. Ct. App. 1929).

Pincite

Opinion

FUNDERBURK, J.

From a judgment for the sum of $575 in favor of J. M. Radford Grocery Company, plaintiff, against W. L. Haynes, defendant, the latter has appealed. The case comes to us upon a transcript and statement of facts, without any brief by either of the parties, and without any motions explanatory of the action of the parties in failing to file briefs. Upon the submission of the case we were somewhat in doubt, in view of apparently contradictory decisions, as to the proper disposition to make of the appeal,, particularly with reference to whether we should dismiss same for want of prosecution, and whether we were under duty to examine the record to discover the existence of fundamental error. Having certified the questions of practice involved to the Supreme Court, and the decision of the Supreme Court having been made and certified to us for our guidance (W. L. Haynes, Appellant, v. J. M. Radford Grocery Co., Appellee, 14 S.W.(2d) 811), we have determined to examine the record and make disposition of the case upon its merits.

An inspection of the record convinces us that the judgment is sustainable under the pleadings, and, no fundamental error appearing, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

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

FUNDERBURK, J.

From a judgment for the sum of $575 in favor of J. M. Radford Grocery Company, plaintiff, against W. L. Haynes, defendant, the latter has appealed. The case comes to us upon a transcript and statement of facts, without any brief by either of the parties, and without any motions explanatory of the action of the parties in failing to file briefs. Upon the submission of the case we were somewhat in doubt, in view of apparently contradictory decisions, as to the proper disposition to make of the appeal,, particularly with reference to whether we should dismiss same for want of prosecution, and whether we were under duty to examine the record to discover the existence of fundamental error. Having certified the questions of practice involved to the Supreme Court, and the decision of the Supreme Court having been made and certified to us for our guidance (W. L. Haynes, Appellant, v. J. M. Radford Grocery Co., Appellee, 14 S.W.(2d) 811), we have determined to examine the record and make disposition of the case upon its merits.

An inspection of the record convinces us that the judgment is sustainable under the pleadings, and, no fundamental error appearing, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

16 S.W.2d 1118, 1929 Tex. App. LEXIS 558, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/w-l-haynes-v-j-m-radford-grocery-texapp-1929.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack