Haile v. Coker

4 Citing cases

  1. Walker v. Money

    93 S.W.2d 602 (Tex. Civ. App. 1936)   Cited 3 times

    Jester v. Steiner, 86 Tex. 415, 25 S.W. 411; Boswell v. Pannell, 107 Tex. 433, 180 S.W. 593; 22 C.J. ยง 13, p. 67 et seq. In support of their contention appellants rely upon the cases of Spurlock v. Republic Bank Trust Co. (Tex.Civ.App.) 53 S.W.2d 93; St. Louis Southwestern Ry. Co. v. Roman (Tex.Civ.App.) 244 S.W. 197; Haile v. Coker (Tex.Civ.App.) 258 S.W. 228; Engelman v. Anderson (Tex.Civ.App.) 243 S.W. 728, 730; Knight Realty Co. v. Williams (Tex.Civ.App.) 193 S.W. 168, 169; Cunningham v. M. W. B. G. Daves (Tex.Civ.App.) 141 S.W. 808. An examination of the authorities cited by appellants will reveal that we are not in conflict with the holding of any of them.

  2. Spurlock v. Republic Bank Trust Co.

    53 S.W.2d 93 (Tex. Civ. App. 1932)   Cited 1 times

    The party having the burden of proof on the whole case shall be entitled to open and conclude the argument." Unquestionably, under the facts in this case as revealed by the record, the burden of proof was upon appellant to establish affirmatively all material issues submitted to the jury; this being true, appellant was, by virtue of said article 2183, Revised Statutes, entitled to open and conclude the argument, although he did not file any admission as provided by rule 31 for the trial of causes in the district court. Haile v. Coker (Tex.Civ.App.) 258 S.W. 228; Texas Power Light Co. v. Jones (Tex.Civ.App.) 293 S.W. 885 (error refused): Engelman v. Anderson (Tex.Civ.App.) 243 S.W. 728 (error refused); City of Rosebud v. Vitek (Tex.Civ.App.) 210 S.W. 728; St. Louis Southwestern R. Co. v. Roman (Tex.Civ.App.) 244 S.W. 197 (error dismissed).

  3. White Sewing Mach. v. Lindsay

    14 S.W.2d 311 (Tex. Civ. App. 1929)   Cited 4 times

    " The case of Bassham v. Evans (Tex.Civ.App.) 216 S.W. 446, and Haile v. Coker (Tex.Civ.App.) 258 S.W. 228, announce the same rule. It follows from what we have said that the Judgment of the court below should be affirmed for the sum of $55, the value of the plaintiff's machine and reversed and remanded as to the judgment for $350 compensating damages, and it has been so ordered.

  4. Haile v. Coker

    267 S.W. 1010 (Tex. Civ. App. 1925)   Cited 2 times

    This is the second appeal to this court of this controversy. See 258 S.W. 228. Since the former appeal both parties have amended their pleadings, and an entirely different question is presented. After the issues as above stated were joined, and before the commencement of the trial, the defendant filed his admission under rule 31 for the district and county courts, and asked that he be permitted to open and conclude in the introduction of evidence, and in argument.