Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Mercer
| Decision Date | 15 April 1936 |
| Docket Number | Motion No. 12375; No. 6513. |
| Citation | 93 S.W.2d 376 |
| Parties | TEXAS & P. RY. CO. v. MERCER. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
T. D. Gresham, of Dallas, and Head, Dillard, Maxey-Freeman & McReynolds and J. F. Holt, all of Sherman, for plaintiff in error.
Webb & Webb, of Sherman, for defendants in error.
O. B. Freeman, of Dallas, for defendant in error Gifford-Hill & Co.
It appears from the record in this case that The Texas & Pacific Railway Company and E. F. Mercer were both dissatisfied with the judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals in this cause, and each filed an application for writ of error to this court. Both applications were granted.
It further appears that E. F. Mercer duly filed a writ of error bond, which bond contained the following condition:
"Now, therefore, we E. F. Mercer, plaintiff in error, as principal, and A. S. Noble and A. E. Jamison, as sureties, acknowledge ourselves to pay to the Texas & Pacific Railway Company and Gifford-Hill & Company, defendants in error, the sum of two hundred dollars, conditioned that the said E. F. Mercer, plaintiff in error, shall prosecute his writ of error with effect, and pay all of the costs which have accrued in the Court of Civil Appeals, the District Court, and which may accrued in the Supreme Court."
It further appears that on March 14, 1936, after final judgment in this court , E. F. Mercer filed in this court his application for the issuance of mandate without the payment of costs. This application was accompanied by Mercer's affidavit, under article 1774, R.C.S. of Texas 1925, of his inability to pay costs or give security therefor. On April 8, 1936, this court entered its order granting the application of said Mercer for the issuance of mandate without payment of costs. At the time such order was entered the fact that the above bond had been filed by Mercer was not called to our attention. Such has since been done.
Under the above record it appears that Mercer has already given security for all costs in this case in all courts. He therefore has no right to make affidavit under article 1774, supra. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Saxon, 59 S.W.(2d) 814 (Tex. Com.App., opinion approved).
It is adjudged that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Levene v. City of Salem
...for loss of good will resulting from tort may be recovered in a proper case. There is some authority therefor. Texas & P. R. Co. v. Mercer, 127 Tex. 220, 90 S.W.2d 557, 93 S.W.2d 376, 106 A.L.R. 1299, 1304; Ewing v. Wm. L. Foley, Inc., 115 Tex. 222, 280 S.W. 499, 44 A.L.R. 627, 636. Good wi......
-
Avery v. City of Lyons, 41063
...417; and see, also, Shepherdson v. Storrs, supra. Good will is property. It may be sold and it may be damaged. The Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Mercer, 127 Tex. 220, 90 S.W.2d 557, 93 S.W.2d 376, 106 A.L.R. 1299. The chief elements of good will are continuity of place and continuity of time. Matte......
-
Henwood v. Bennett
...Tex. 272, 121 S.W.2d 585; Seale v. Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co., 65 Tex. 274, 57 Am. Rep. 602, cited with approval in Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Mercer, 127 Tex. 220, 90 S.W.2d 557, 93 S.W.2d 376, 106 A.L.R. 1299; Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. v. Gaddis, Tex. Com.App., 208 S.W. The conclusions reached elimin......
-
City of Dublin v. Hicks
...that the good will of a business is property, and that damages recoverable for its loss are damages to property. Texas & P. Ry, Co. v. Mercer, 127 Tex. 220, 90 S.W.2d 557, 93 S.W.2d 376, 106 A.L.R. 1299; Ewing v. W. L. Foley, Inc., supra. Even so, good will is but an element of the business......