green
Positive treatment
2.9 score
Treatment trajectory · 1942 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1942
1984
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
Rubinstein v. Lucchese, Inc.
(2×)
See Murphy v. Dilworth, 137 Tex. 32, 36 , 151 S.W.2d 1004, 1005 (Tex.1941); see also Bache Halsey Stuart Shields, Inc. v. Alamo Sav.
cited
Cited "see"
Templeton v. Dreiss
See Murphy v. Dilworth, 137 Tex. 32 , 151 S.W.2d 1004, 1005 (1941).
cited
Cited "see"
Sidelnik v. American States Insurance Co.
See Murphy v. Dilworth, 137 Tex. 32 , 151 S.W.2d 1004, 1005 (1941); see also Bache Halsey Stuart Shields, Inc. v. Alamo Sav.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Moore v. Smith
(2×)
In sum, this writer believes this is the sort of case the court was faced with in Universal CIT Credit Corp. v. Daniel, 150 Tex. 513 , 243 S.W.2d 154, 159 (1951), when it was said "we cannot agree that this discrepancy renders the contract ambiguous in so far as the obligations of the parties with respect to this suit are concerned." Furthermore, it has been held that when there is doubt as to an instrument's meaning, irrespective of whether or not it is ambiguous, it is proper to look to the surrounding circumstances and to the understanding of the instrument by the parties, Scott v. Walden, …
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Everett Hughes
v.
F. H. Rhodes
v.
F. H. Rhodes
W. E. Fitzgerald, of Wichita Falls, for plaintiff in error., John D. McComb and J. P. Simpson, of Jacksboro, Levy & Evans, of Fort Worth, and Harris & Martin, of Wichita Falls, for defendant in error.
Slatton.
Published
Mr. Judge Slatton
delivered the opinion of the Commission of Appeals, Section B.
. The above styled and numbered cause was decided by the Honorable Court of Civil Appeals at Fort Worth. 137 S. W. (2d) 820. This Court granted writ of error. The case was submitted in this Court with the case of United Production Corporation et al. v. Everett Hughes, this day decided. (Ante p. 21). The controlling question decided in that case rules the present.
It is therefore ordered that the judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals which reversed the judgment of the district court and remanded the cause with instructions to dismiss the suit be affirmed.
Opinion adopted by the Supreme Court April 30, 1941.
Rehearing overruled June 11, 1941.