Gist v. Turner

2 Citing cases

  1. Mut. Fed. Sav. Loan Ass'n v. Anderson

    88 S.W.2d 499 (Tex. Civ. App. 1935)   Cited 4 times

    We find numerous later decisions of the different Courts of Civil Appeals and they all appear to have followed the holding in the Middlebrook Case except those by the Texarkana court. Ball v. Southern Rock Island Plow Co., 50 S.W. 158 (Dallas); McKaughan et al. v. Kellett-Chatham Mach. Co., 67 S.W. 908 (Austin); First Nat. Bank v. Valenta, 33 Tex. Civ. App. 108, 75 S.W. 1087 (Galveston); International G. N. Ry. Co. v. Anderson County, 150 S.W. 239 (Galveston); Theodore Keller Co. v. Mangum, 161 S.W. 19 (El Paso); Beaumont Cotton Oil Mill Co. v. Hester, 210 S.W. 702 (Ft. Worth); Landa v. F. S. Ainsa Co., 231 S.W. 175 (El Paso); Shafer v. Brashear, 274 S.W. 229 (San Antonio); Southwestern Surgical Supply Co. v. Scarborough, 15 S.W.2d 65 (El Paso); Gist v. Turner, 32 S.W.2d 399 (El Paso); contra: Reeder Lynch v. E. B. Hayes Mach. Co., 257 S.W. 947 (Texarkana); Korioth v. McGraw, 37 S.W.2d 347 (Texarkana). We next find the question before the Supreme Court in Pat Warner v. Gohlman, Lester Co., 117 Tex. 145, 298 S.W. 890.

  2. Dickson v. McLaughlan

    51 S.W.2d 628 (Tex. Civ. App. 1932)   Cited 3 times

    Furthermore, the temporary injunction having been sued out of this pending main cause, which had to do with nothing else than the custody of this child between these same individuals, was just a proceeding ancillary thereto; hence was maintainable in Brazoria county anyway. Article 4650, R.S. 1925; International G. N. Ry. Co. v. Anderson county (Tex.Civ.App.) 150 S.W. 239, 248; Id., 106 Tex. 60, 156 S.W. 499, 500; McDade v. Vogel (Tex.Civ.App.) 173 S.W. 506; Geary v. Word (Tex.Civ.App.) 259 S.W. 309; Gist v. Turner (Tex.Civ.App.) 32 S.W.2d 399; City of Farmersville v. Texas-Louisiana Power Co. (Tex.Civ.App.) 33 S.W.2d 272, 274. As concerns the sufficiency of the evidence to support the order of the court, we have not had difficulty.