From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Panhandle Motors Co. v. Foster

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas, Amarillo
Nov 22, 1922
245 S.W. 269 (Tex. Civ. App. 1922)

Opinion

No. 2034.

November 22, 1922.

Appeal from Childress County Court; M. J. Hathaway, Judge.

Action between the Panhandle Motors Company and J. B. Foster. Judgment for the latter, and from an order denying a new trial the former appeals. Reversed and remanded.

Jno. W. Davidson, of Childress, for appellant.

Howard Barret, of Childress, for appellee.


The appellee has filed no brief, and we accept the statement of the case as made by appellant. Rule 40 (142 S.W. xiv) for Courts of Civil Appeals.

It appears that appellant's attorney failed to be present at the trial of the case, because of the fact that he was informed by the clerk of the court in which the case was pending that during the attorney's absence the cause had been continued and the jury discharged for the term. The attorney was warranted in relying on information received from this source, and it justified his failure to be present when the case was called for trial on the next morning. Fitzgerald v. Wygal, 24 Tex.Civ.App. 372, 59 S.W. 621. Under the circumstances we are of the opinion that the motion for new trial should have been granted.

Reversed and remanded.


Summaries of

Panhandle Motors Co. v. Foster

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas, Amarillo
Nov 22, 1922
245 S.W. 269 (Tex. Civ. App. 1922)
Case details for

Panhandle Motors Co. v. Foster

Case Details

Full title:PANHANDLE MOTORS CO. v. FOSTER

Court:Court of Civil Appeals of Texas, Amarillo

Date published: Nov 22, 1922

Citations

245 S.W. 269 (Tex. Civ. App. 1922)

Citing Cases

Zaunbrecher v. Trim

And now in his motion for rehearing appellee asserts that the statements made in appellant's brief and motion…

Texas Employers Ins. Ass'n v. Van Pelt

The two charges are clearly upon the weight of the evidence, and there is no testimony to which we have been…