Cotton v. Rand

Decision Date23 October 1899
Citation53 S.W. 343
PartiesCOTTON et al. v. RAND et al.
CourtTexas Supreme Court

Millard Patterson and W. B. Merchant, for plaintiffs in error. Leigh Clark, W. M. Coldwell, and W. B. Brack, for defendant in error Noyes Rand. W. H. Burges, for defendant in error P. B. Delaney.

GAINES, C. J.

There are two motions for a rehearing in this case,—one by defendant in error Noyes Rand, and the other by defendant in error P. B. Delaney. Having considered the motion of Rand, we see no good reason for changing our former opinion, and it is therefore overruled. Delaney was a defendant in the original suit, but in his pleadings disclaimed any interest in the Cotton addition. It seems that he was a part owner of the mineral lands, but no judgment was sought against these lands, or against him, on that account. The trial court gave judgment in his favor. Presumably he was made a party to the appeal out of abundance of caution. No error was assigned by the plaintiffs in error, either in the court of civil appeals or in this court, as to the judgment for him. It should have been affirmed. His motion is therefore granted, and our former judgment is reformed by setting aside so much thereof as reverses the judgment in his favor, and by affirming the judgment of the trial court and of the court of civil appeals as to him.

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 cases
  • Randall v. Peerless Motor Car Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • 19 juin 1912
    ... ... 34 L. R. A.m n. s.) 1046; q/uinn v. Burton, 195 Mass. 277, 81 ... N.E. 257; Erskine, Oxenford & Co. v. Sachs, 1901, 2 ... K. B. 504; Cotton v. Rand, 93 Tex. 7, 23, 51 S.W ... 838, 53 S.W. 343 ...          Nor was ... it necessary that the defendant should have known of the ... ...
  • Colbert v. Dallas Joint Stock Land Bank of Dallas
    • United States
    • Texas Supreme Court
    • 3 mars 1937
    ... ... Carroll v. Welch, 26 Tex. 147; City of Sherman v. Connor and Oliver, 88 Tex. 35, 29 S.W. 1053; Cotton v. Rand, 93 Tex. 7, 51 S.W. 838, 53 S.W. 343; Henrietta National Bank v. Barrett (Tex.Civ.App.) 25 S.W. 456 (application for writ of error refused); ... ...
  • Binder v. Millikin.
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • 23 janvier 1918
    ... ...         The courts of Texas have followed the rule stated, and in the case of Cotton v. Rand, 93 Tex. 7, 51 S. W. 838, 53 S. W. 343, the Supreme Court says: ...         "We are clearly of the opinion that such a breach of ... ...
  • Truly v. Austin
    • United States
    • Texas Supreme Court
    • 17 février 1988
    ... ... See, e.g., Cotton v. Rand, ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT