Withers v. Crenshaw

2 Citing cases

  1. Briley v. Hay

    13 S.W.2d 997 (Tex. Civ. App. 1929)   Cited 12 times

    District court rule 53 (142 S.W. xxi); Jackson v. E. L. Rice Co. (Tex.Civ.App.) 295 S.W. 352; Daniel v. Daniel (Tex.Civ.App.) 128 S.W. 469; Ilseng v. Carter (Tex.Civ.App.) 158 S.W. 1163; King-Collie Co. v. Wichita Falls Warehouse Co. (Tex.Civ.App.) 105 S.W. 748; Withers v. Crenshaw (Tex.Civ.App.) 155 S.W. 1189; Southern Casualty Co. v. Morgan (Tex.Civ.App.) 299 S.W. 476; Alsabrook v. Bishop (Tex.Civ.App.) 295 S.W. 646. We doubt, however, if appellee's petition is sufficient to state a cause of action under either of the two theories mentioned. If so, an error of a fundamental nature is involved which requires our notice, even in the absence of an assignment.

  2. Johnson v. Conger

    166 S.W. 405 (Tex. Civ. App. 1914)   Cited 12 times

    The only proper showing for such a judgment would be an order to that effect appearing in the minutes of the court. Withers v. Crenshaw, 155 S.W. 1189. Reversed and remanded in part; affirmed in part.