Thompson v. Larry Lightner, Inc., 12043
| Decision Date | 03 May 1950 |
| Docket Number | No. 12043,12043 |
| Citation | 230 S.W.2d 831 |
| Parties | THOMPSON v. LARRY LIGHTNER, Inc., et al. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Kleberg, Eckhardt, Mobley, Lockett & Weil, Corpus Christi, for appellant.
Ward & Brown, Corpus Christi, for appellees.
Larry Lightner, Inc., a private corporation, and other private corporations, joined by C. D. Kirk & Company, a partnership, and the Shippers Traffic Service, also a partnership, filed this suit against Guy A. Thompson, Trustee for The St. Louis, Brownsville and Mexico Railway Company, and as trustee for other railway companies, praying for a declaratory judgment that certain acts performed by Shippers Traffic Service, as plaintiffs' representative, in preparing, presenting and collecting claims for plaintiffs on account of loss and damage to produce shipped over the railroads of defendants and their connecting carriers do not constitute a violation of Article 430a of Vernon's Penal Code of Texas, now repealed.
Abe M. Katz Company, a private corporation, and other corporations and partnerships intervened and prayed for a declaratory judgment that the acts set forth in plaintiffs' original petition are not in violation of the statute.
Guy A. Thompson, Trustee, filed an answer containing a general denial and a cross-action, and prayed that plaintiffs be denied the adjudication prayed for by them, and prayed for an adjudication declaring that cross-defendants are guilty of barratry and the unlawful practice of law and have no right to institute, prosecute or otherwise deal with claims or suits against cross-plaintiff. By a first amended cross-action said Guy A. Thompson, Trustee, alleged that neither J. C. Yancey or D. A. Crossley, who are members of Shippers Traffic Service, are licensed to practice law in Texas, and specifically alleged certain acts they had performed and were performing which constituted the unlawful practice of law contrary to the common law and statutory law of the State of Texas and Rules of the Supreme Court of Texas and Art. 430a of the Penal Code of Texas, now repealed, and also constituted the offense of barratry as defined by Article 430 of said Penal Code, and reciting that cross-plaintiff is entitled to, and prayed for, an injunction enjoining cross-defendants, their agents, servants and employees from performing certain specific acts and from practicing law, and for general relief. Plaintiffs filed an answer to defendant's first amended cross-action, which contains a general and several special denials and allegations setting out in detail the services they perform for shippers in collecting claims, which they claim do not constitute the unlawful practice of law and are not in violation of any statute, and pray that defendant take nothing by his cross-action and be denied a writ of injunction.
The case was tried by the court without a jury and judgment rendered that plaintiffs and interveners...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Southern Traffic Bureau v. Thompson
...claims to the carriers which had no factual basis for liability and others for excessive amounts. In the recent case of Thompson v. Larry Lightner, Inc., 230 S.W.2d 831, decided by this Court on May 3, 1950, we held that Thompson as trustee for a number of rail carriers was not entitled to ......
-
McKenzie v. Carte
...challenged on any point of appeal, they are binding upon the parties and must be accepted by the Court of Civil Appeals. Thompson v. Larry Lightner, Inc., 230 S.W.2d 831 (Tex.Civ.App.1950, n. r. e.); Curry v. E. E. Stone Lumber Co., 218 S.W.2d 293 (Tex.Civ.App.1948, n. r. e.). Findings of f......
-
Smith v. Hues
...McKenzie v. Carte, 385 S.W.2d 520 (Tex.Civ.App., Corpus Christi 1964, writ ref'd n.r.e.); Thompson v. Larry Lightner, Inc., 230 S.W.2d 831 (Tex.Civ.App., San Antonio 1950, writ ref'd n.r.e.); Curry v. E. E. Stone Lumber Co., 218 S.W.2d 293 (Tex.Civ.App., El Paso 1948, writ ref'd n.r.e.). Be......
-
Lovejoy v. Lillie
...Orleans Railroad Co., 283 S.W.2d 768, 771 (Tex.Civ.App. Austin 1955, writ ref'd n. r. e.); Thompson v. Larry Lightner, Inc., 230 S.W.2d 831 (Tex.Civ.App. San Antonio 1950, writ ref'd n. r. e.). Appellant's motion and amended motion for rehearing are respectfully ...