Case ID: tex_89/html/0104-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "GAIHES, Chief Justice.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Mrs. C. F. Bonnell v. Edward Prince.
    No. 869.
    Decided January 6, 1896.
    Cases Adhered to—Petition for Writ of Error.
    Hilliard v. White, 88 Texas, 591; Hodo v. Railway, 88 Texas, 523; Hammond v. Tarver, 32 S. W. Rep., 511; and Willis’ Executors V. Moore, ante, p. - (32 S. W. Rep., 1038), adhered to. Requisites of petition for writ of error. The application must conform to Rule 1, amended rules, 87 Texas, XXXVII.
    Application for writ of error to Court of Civil Appeals for Fourth District, in an appeal from Kerr County.
    
      Leo Tarlton and Geo. G. Altgelt, for the application
   GAIHES, Chief Justice.

The petition for the writ of error in this ease does not comply with the rules. Its objectionable features are quite similar -to those .which appeared in the petition in the case of Hilliard v. White, and which were pointed out in our opinion delivered at the present term. 88 Texas, 591, (32 S. W. Rep., 525.) That opinion in connection with those in the following cases, will be sufficient to guide counsel in amending their application: Hodo v. Railway Co., 88 Texas, 523, (32 S. W. Rep., 511); Hammond v. Tarver, 32 S. W. Rep., 511, and Willis, Exrs. v. Moore, 32 S. W. Rep., 1038.

Applicant is allowed ten days in which to amend his application.

The petition was amended. The application was refused.