Gavin v. Webb
Joe D. Gavin et ux. v. Howard Webb
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
Per Curiam.
— This case is dismissed for want of jurisdiction under the provisions of Section 6 of Article 1728, R. C. S., 1925. In this connection we wish to say that we are in disagreement with much that is said in the opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals, but in spite of this we think that if we should grant this writ we would be compelled to affirm this case.
Opinion delivered January 20, 1937.
On Rehearing
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
ON REHEARING.
We are of the opinion that appellant’s brief in the Court of Civil Appeals was sufficient and should have been considered in its entirety. In spite of this we have examined this record and all briefs, and are of the opinion that correct judgments were -entered by the two lower courts.
Opinion delivered February 10, 1937.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 7 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
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.