Graham Ref. Co. v. Graham Oil Syndicate

5 Citing cases

  1. Hargrove v. Insurance Inv. Corp.

    142 Tex. 111 (Tex. 1944)   Cited 70 times
    In Hargrove, this court held final a judgment which awarded Hargrove damages for breach of contract but delayed payment and provided for a credit depending on the outcome of a pending suit between different parties.

    " See also Gaston v. Boyd, 52 Tex. 282; Railroad Commission v. Weld Neville, 95 Tex. 278, 66 S.W. 1095; Keystone Pipe Supply Co. v. Liberty Refining Co. (Com. App.) 260 S.W. 1018; Graham v. Coolidge, 70 S.W. 231; Graham Refining Co. v. Graham Oil Syndicate, 262 S.W. 142; American Employers' Ins. Co. v. Dallas Joint Stock Land Bank, 170, S.W.2d 546. In Graham v. Coolidge, 70 S.W. 231, the decree determined the amount and status of the claims of all parties, foreclosed the lien securing them, directed the sale of the property and fixed the upset price at which it should be sold.

  2. Dixon v. Sanchez

    91 S.W.2d 325 (Tex. 1936)   Cited 2 times

    The general rule is that a stakeholder is denied the right of appeal. He cannot object to rulings on issues between claimants, for his rights are not affected thereby. Graham Refining Co. v. Graham Oil Syndicate, 262 S.W. 142; Royal Neighbors of America v. Fletcher, 230 S.W. 476; 3 C. J., p. 625, Sec. 481. In this case, however, Sanchez by his answer did not admit the amount of Dixon's claim. He is therefore in a position to complain of the judgment of the trial court in that one particular.

  3. Mccormick Operatng v. Gibson Drilling

    717 S.W.2d 425 (Tex. App. 1986)   Cited 7 times

    In Graham v. Coolidge, 70 S.W. 231 (Tex.Civ.App. 1902), the judgment determined the amount and status of the parties' claims, foreclosed a lien and directed the sale of the property but reserved the authority to postpone the sale and modify its terms and conditions. The judgment in Graham Ref. Co. v. Graham Oil Syn., 262 S.W. 142 (Tex.Civ.App. — Fort Worth 1924, no writ), was held to be final although it provided that the amount awarded to the plaintiff be paid into the registry of the court to await the determination of a suit pending in the United States District Court. It has been recognized that "by various gradations, the interlocutory decree may be made to approximate the final determination, until the line of discrimination becomes so faint as not to be readily perceived."

  4. Gulf, C. S. F. Ry. Co. v. Woodley

    2 S.W.2d 470 (Tex. Civ. App. 1927)

    The courts have uniformly held that the judge's qualification to a bill of exception is binding upon a party if he accepts same with the qualification and files it as a part of the record. Katy State Bank v. Katy Bank (Tex.Civ.App.) 283 S.W. 1114 (error dismissed); Payne Joubert Machine Foundry Co. v. Dilley (Tex.Civ.App.) 140 S.W. 496; McCallen v. Mogul Producing Refining Co. (Tex.Civ.App.) 257 S.W. 918 (error dismissed); Johnson v. Frost (Tex.Civ.App.) 229 S.W. 558; Irwin v. State Nat. Bank (Tex.Civ.App.) 224 S.W. 246; Pizzitola v. Jeffords (Tex.Civ.App.) 294 S.W. 284; Graham Refining Co. v. Graham Oil Syndicate (Tex.Civ.App.) 262 S.W. 142; Baker v. Nance Bros. (Tex.Civ.App.) 294 S.W. 290. The above authorities further hold that, unless appellant's request to the trial judge to file findings of fact and conclusions of law is called to his attention, it is not error for him to fail to file same. The trial judge is not required to examine the papers filed to ascertain whether said request is made, but, under article 2208 of the Revised Statutes, it is incumbent upon the party desiring same to make a request and call the judge's attention to the fact that he has asked him to file findings of fact and conclusions of law.

  5. Pizzitola v. Jeffords

    294 S.W. 284 (Tex. Civ. App. 1927)   Cited 2 times

    No formal motion for that purpose is required, and the trial judge should not be expected to examine his docket for such a motion, or take cognizance of one not called to his attention. McCallen et al. v. Mogul Producing Refining Co. (Tex.Civ.App.) 257 S.W. 918; Western Union Tel. Co. v. Trice (Tex.Civ.App.) 48 S.W. 770; Graham Refining Co. v. Graham Oil Syndicate (Tex.Civ.App.) 262 S.W. 142. Moreover, there is in this record a full statement of facts, to which the attorneys for both parties agreed. The testimony shows that there was practically but one issue of fact involved — was the lettuce shipped equal to the grade contracted for by the appellant?