Yates v. Del Rio Wool & Mohair Co.

Court of Appeals of Texas

Yates v. Del Rio Wool & Mohair Co.

374 S.W.2d 341, 1963 Tex. App. LEXIS 1944

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedDecember 11, 1963

DocketNo. 14204

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 374 S.W.2d 341 (Yates v. Del Rio Wool & Mohair Co.) 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

Yates v. Del Rio Wool & Mohair Co., 374 S.W.2d 341, 1963 Tex. App. LEXIS 1944 (Tex. Ct. App. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

POPE, Justice.

Del Rio Wool & Mohair Company filed this interpleader suit to determine the ownership of funds in its hands from the sale of mohair. The trial court, after hearing the evidence, divided the funds two-thirds to defendant I. G. (Cap) Yates and one-third to defendant W. L. Babb. The court awarded attorney’s fees to the attorney- for plaintiff, and also gave judgment for Babb against Yates for other claims he had against Yates.

Yates appealed and states two points. The first is that the court’s judgment is in violation of Section 19, Article 1, of the Texas Constitution, Vernon’s Ann.St. The other is that the judgment violates the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The brief states no factual basis for either point and does not purport to brief them. The judgment is affirmed. Thigpen v. Locke, Tex., 363 S.W.2d 247; Wagner v. Foster, 161 Tex. 333, 341 S.W.2d 887; Coastal Transmission Corporation v. Lennox, Tex.Civ.App., 331 S.W.2d 778.

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

POPE, Justice.

Del Rio Wool & Mohair Company filed this interpleader suit to determine the ownership of funds in its hands from the sale of mohair. The trial court, after hearing the evidence, divided the funds two-thirds to defendant I. G. (Cap) Yates and one-third to defendant W. L. Babb. The court awarded attorney’s fees to the attorney- for plaintiff, and also gave judgment for Babb against Yates for other claims he had against Yates.

Yates appealed and states two points. The first is that the court’s judgment is in violation of Section 19, Article 1, of the Texas Constitution, Vernon’s Ann.St. The other is that the judgment violates the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The brief states no factual basis for either point and does not purport to brief them. The judgment is affirmed. Thigpen v. Locke, Tex., 363 S.W.2d 247; Wagner v. Foster, 161 Tex. 333, 341 S.W.2d 887; Coastal Transmission Corporation v. Lennox, Tex.Civ.App., 331 S.W.2d 778.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

374 S.W.2d 341, 1963 Tex. App. LEXIS 1944, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/yates-v-del-rio-wool-mohair-co-texapp-1963.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack