Enterprise Co. v. Glenn

2 Citing cases

  1. Fort Worth Press Co. v. Davis

    96 S.W.2d 416 (Tex. Civ. App. 1936)   Cited 15 times
    Holding newspaper editorial which charged that candidate for nomination for county judge had, while mayor, wasted $80,000 of taxpayers' money on useless projects, was substantially true although only $17,500 had been spent on projects

    That this is the law, we do not believe any one will question. Following are a few of the many cases which we believe control the case at bar: Quaid v. Tipton, 21 Tex. Civ. App. 131, 51 S.W. 264; Caylor v. Nunn (Tex.Civ.App.) 235 S.W. 264; Express Publishing Co. v. Keeran (Tex.Com.App.) 284 S.W. 913; Enterprise Co. v. Wheat (Tex.Civ.App.) 290 S.W. 212; Enterprise Co. v. Glenn (Tex.Civ.App.) 290 S.W. 806; Ray v. Times Pub. Co. (Tex.Com.App.) 12 S.W.2d 165; Belo Co. v. Fechner (Tex.Civ.App.) 42 S.W.2d 641; Lundberg v. Brownsville Herald Pub. Co. (Tex.Civ.App.) 66 S.W.2d 375. The statements found in the article complained about come squarely within the provisions of article 5432, Rev.Civ.Statutes, as amended by Acts 1927, c. 80, ยง 2 (Vernon's Ann.Civ.St. art. 5432), and the publication thereof is "deemed privileged" by us.

  2. Sec. Union Cas. Co. v. Frederick

    295 S.W. 301 (Tex. Civ. App. 1927)   Cited 14 times
    In Security Union Casualty Co. v. Frederick (Tex.Civ.App.) 295 S.W. 301, 303, where the expert testimony was to the effect that symptoms of neuritis are subjective, and the doctors have to rely upon the patient's statement as to whether or not he has pain, this court said: "Under the testimony of the medical experts, the nature of appellee's complaint could be diagnosed only upon his statement. If appellee was telling the truth, his trouble was neuritis, and the testimony of the experts, as quoted, those called both by appellee and appellant, raised the issue of permanent total incapacity.

    (3) We agree with appellant that each party to a suit has the right to have an affirmative submission of all issues made by his pleadings and supported by his evidence, and that a denial of that right constitutes reversible error. Enterprise Co. v. Glenn (Tex.Civ.App.) 290 S.W. 806. But under this proposition the trial court did not commit reversible error by refusing appellant's requested charge, as follows: