Hicks Rubber Co., Dist. v. Harper

Hicks Rubber Company, Distributor, v. J. W. Harper

Hicks Rubber Co. v. Harper, 132 S.W.2d 579 (Tex. 1939)

Court: Texas Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided: November 15, 1939
Docket: No. Application No. 24,543.
Judges: PER CURIAM.
Citations: 132 S.W.2d 579134 Tex. 89

Cited by 9

Opinion of the Court — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM.

We have concluded that a correct judgment was entered by the Court of Civil Appeals in this cause and, for that reason, dismiss the application for writ of error; but we deem it advisable to take notice of one particular holding of the Court of Civil Appeals, least it create confusion with respect to an important question of practice. This language appears in the opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals ( 131 S. W. (2d) 749 ) :

“It was held by the Supreme Court in the case of Texas & N. O. Ry. Co. v. Crow, ( 132 Texas, 465 ) 123 S. W. (2d) 649 , par. 8, that the failure of the. trial court to define a term could be reviewed only where the record showed that a special charge defining the term was tendered by the complaining party.”

*90 That is an incorrect construction of our opinion in the Crow case. What was there held was that the failure to submit a particular special issue could be reviewed only where the record showed that a special charge was tendered on that issue. (Italics ours.) ( 132 Texas 465 , par. 5.) By such holding we were but following our previous holding in the two cases there cited. Defining a legal term is not submitting a special issue to the jury, and it is not required of one complaining of the charge of the Court for failure to define a legal term that he prepare and submit a correct definition of such term. All that is required of him is that he object to the charge, specifically complaining of its failure to define the legal term. Robertson & Mueller v. Holden, 1 S. W. (2d) 570 .

Opinion delivered November 15, 1939.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 9 cases

View all citing references →

Relies on it most ⓘ

Galvan v. Fedder678 S.W.2d 596 (Tex. App. 1984)
Traders & General Insurance v. Hicks Rubber Co.169 S.W.2d 142 (Tex. 1943)
Cannon v. Pearson383 S.W.2d 565 (Tex. 1964)
Hoke v. Poser384 S.W.2d 335 (Tex. 1964)
Employers Casualty Co. v. Hicks Rubber Co.160 S.W.2d 96 (Tex. App. 1942)
Texas Milk Products Co. v. Birtcher138 S.W.2d 285 (Tex. App. 1940)

Most recent

Galvan v. Fedder678 S.W.2d 596 (Tex. App. 1984)
McMillen v. Klingensmith454 S.W.2d 424 (Tex. App. 1970)
Hoke v. Poser384 S.W.2d 335 (Tex. 1964)
Cannon v. Pearson383 S.W.2d 565 (Tex. 1964)
Ervay-Canton Apartments, Inc. v. Hatterick239 S.W.2d 150 (Tex. App. 1951)
Traders & General Insurance v. Hicks Rubber Co.169 S.W.2d 142 (Tex. 1943)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 3

Depth	Case	Cited by
	Tex. & N. O. R. v. Crow, 123 S.W.2d 649 (Tex. 1939)	29
	Robertson & Mueller v. Holden, 1 S.W.2d 570 (Tex. Comm'n App. 1928)	130
	Hicks Rubber Co. v. Harper, 131 S.W.2d 749 (Tex. App. 1939)	11

`/`	Focus the search box
`j` `k`	Next / previous result
`Enter`	Open the selected result
`x`	Add / remove the selected result from the download list
`n` `p`	Next / previous search term in a case
`c`	Copy the citation of the current case
`+` `−`	Larger / smaller reading text
`?`	Show this list