Granrud v. Rea

2 Citing cases

  1. Smith v. Rickerts

    38 S.W.2d 644 (Tex. Civ. App. 1931)   Cited 4 times

    That a son, emancipated by his father, is entitled to transact business for himself, and to the money he earns and the property he acquires, is well settled. Schuster v. Jewelry Co., 79 Tex. 183, 15 S.W. 259, 23 Am.St.Rep. 327; Washington v. Washington et al. (Tex.Civ.App.) 31 S.W. 88; Duveneck v. Kutzer, 17 Tex. Civ. App. 577, 43 S.W. 541; Granrud et al. v. Rea, 24 Tex. Civ. App. 299, 59 S.W. 841; Turner v. Brown (Tex.Civ.App.) 200 S.W. 1161. Whether a child has been emancipated by his father is a question of fact for the court or jury where the evidence on the issue is conflicting, but, if the facts are undisputed, it is a question of law. 46 C.J. 1346, ยง 201.

  2. P. N. T. Ry. Co. v. Blasengame

    42 Tex. Civ. App. 66 (Tex. Civ. App. 1906)   Cited 8 times

    We will not stop to consider whether or not this ruling was harmless because evidence upon the issue thus made seems to have been admitted, since other errors call for a reversal of the cause, and on another trial appellant should be allowed the full benefit of its affirmative plea in this respect. Again, under the authorities it is not doubted that if appellee had completely emancipated her son, he and not she would own the cause of action herein asserted, and the fourth special answer setting up such fact was improperly stricken out. (Texas Pac. Ry. Co. v. Morin, 66 Tex. 225; Schuster v. Bauman Jewelry Co., 79 Tex. 179; Morris v. Kasling, 79 Tex. 141 [ 79 Tex. 141]; Washington v. Washington, 31 S.W. Rep., 88; Granrud v. Rea, 24 Texas Civ. App. 300[ 24 Tex. Civ. App. 300].) On another trial the question propounded to appellee and complained of in appellant's fourth assignment of error, should be so framed as to be not leading.