From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Mut. Protective Ass'n v. T. B. Taylor

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas, Dallas
Nov 14, 1933
64 S.W.2d 409 (Tex. Civ. App. 1933)

Opinion

No. 11253.

September 30, 1933. Rehearing Denied November 14, 1933.

Appeal from District Court, Henderson County; Ben F. Dent, Judge.

G. R. Lipscomb, of Ft. Worth, for appellant.

Bishop Holland, of Athens, for appellee.


This case has taken the same course in this court in the matter of a failure to file the record within the 60-day period, in appellees' filing a motion to affirm on certificate, in this court permitting the record to be tardily filed and in overruling the motion to affirm, as the case of Mutual Protective Association of Texas v. J. R. Dickerson et ux., 64 S.W.2d 407, this day decided by this court. It is not deemed necessary to recite the facts of this case, other than to refer to the Dickerson Case. For the reason stated in the Dickerson Case, the motion to strike out the transcript of the record is sustained and the appeal is dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.


Summaries of

Mut. Protective Ass'n v. T. B. Taylor

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas, Dallas
Nov 14, 1933
64 S.W.2d 409 (Tex. Civ. App. 1933)
Case details for

Mut. Protective Ass'n v. T. B. Taylor

Case Details

Full title:MUTUAL PROTECTIVE ASS'N OF TEXAS, Appellant, v. T. B. TAYLOR, Appellee

Court:Court of Civil Appeals of Texas, Dallas

Date published: Nov 14, 1933

Citations

64 S.W.2d 409 (Tex. Civ. App. 1933)

Citing Cases

Lawyers Surety Corp. v. Mahood

We think the sheriff's return is sufficient evidence to establish the facts therein recited. Surely appellee…

Kimball-Krough Pump Co. v. Judd

The death of a principal, under the statute, does not abate the suit as to sureties. If either party wanted…