San Antonio light. [volume] (San Antonio, Tex.) 1911-1993, 1923-01-25
COURT PROCEEDINGS
In the supreme Court.

Austin, Tex, Jan. 25.-The following
proceedings were had Wednesday in the
Mandamus awarded: Franklin Fire In
suranco Company ct al. vs. Ed Hall. Com
Missioner ~ l7surance and Banking: City
sf Arkansas Pass ct al. VS.. W. A. Keeling,
Applications for writs Of error granted
City OF Dallas VS.. Texas Employers In
surance Association, Dallas; Phillip Fresh
water ct all VS.. F. g. Hoyt ct al, Wich-
ia: Austin Brothers vs.. Nat Patton 1T
al, Houston, Houston OIL Company OF
Texas Us. Charles Hainesworth ct al, Har-
din
Applications fo- writs Of error refused
KaSr ScCnlSa eu % VS.. The Schumacher
Company, Harris;s Southwestern telegraph
and Telephone Company vs.. J. +. French
ct ux., Harris; City of Dallas VS.. r. Berg
field. Dallas; Security National Bank Of
Dallas vs., r. w. Morgan, Dallas; NJ. II.
Thomas and Company vs.. r. c. Hawthorne
ct AL. Dallas.
Applications dismissed for want Of juris-
dctiOn: Ida Jackson vs.. Larren G. Jack
son, Wichita; W. O. Weimcr ct al vs..
Prince and Prince. wichita: Texas Ranger
Producing and Refining Company ct al.
vs.. Prince and Prince, Wichita; Arcola SUI
gar Mills Company. VS.. I. j. blanchard.
Harris; James Welnor VS.. John Weiner
ct al. Harris: Arcola Sugar Mills Com
pany ct al. vs. The Schumacher Company,
Harris; Mrs. u. c. Bendy ct al. VS.. FL
deity Lumber Company, Tyler; Emmot
L. AlNlNltE W. sAilltEANhu LNpENsS NbAl-
pany ct al. Hunt; Lange Floral and Nur-
sery Company vs. Pat Sheridan, Dallas.
Motion for rehearing OF causes over
ruled: W. @. Num- CT al. va. Titchc GOet-
finger Company. Dallas: Houston and Tex
as Central Railway Company VS. South
ern Architectural Cement Stone Company,
Dallas; Gulf. Colorado and Santa Fe Rail-
way Company vs. Charles German Dali
las; J. j. Riley VS.. Ninie Austin ct al,
Montgomery.
Motions for rehearing Of applications
overruled: Cisco and Northeastern Rail-
way Company VS.. Grover c. Wood ct al,
Stephens: Houston Electric Company VS..
Mary Schmidt, Harris.
order granting writ Of error set aside
and fifteen days allowed in which to file
answer 10 applications; TsXarkaua and
Fort smith Railway Company vs.. Franz
Brass, Hill
Motions for leave TO file petition for
mandamus refused: Authority Uf Webb VS..
Hall; William +. Grimes ct al. W. }. l..
Chapman, Commissioner OF insurance and
Banking; Fidelity Loan and Savings Cor
poration vs.. ]. j.. Chapman. Commissioner
of Banking.
Causes submitted Certified questionsl 4:
Paso: Dover Common School District No.
&C ct al vs. County School Trustees OF
Navarro county, Texas, ct al. Navarro.
Certified questions withdrawn at request
OF court OF civil appeals: A. r. Craven
ct al. VS.. Bob buchanan ct al. McLeunan.
Motions for r2hearing Of causes sub
mItted: First National Bank OF Amarillo
ct al VS.. Mamie Rush, Administrative,
Potter; Miller and Vidor Lumber Company
vs.. Kirby Lumber Company ct al, Orange
Austin Fire Insurance Company vs.. Adams
Childers Company Coleman; Lancaster and
Wallace, Receivers, VS.. Ben L. Fitch. Har-
risOn.
Motions to advance causes submitted: W.
4. Shtplev VS.. FlOydada Independent School
District ct al, Floyd; W. II. Adams ct al.
vs.. Rockwell County Rockwell.
The following cases were decided to-
day by the supreme court on reports %
the commission Of appeals:
Judgment Of thn court Of civil appeals
and district court both reversed and cause
rcmanded TO district court: Gulf, Colorado
and Santa Fe Railway Company vs.. An
derscn Clayton and Company. Dallas:
Judgment OF the court OF Civil appeals
reversing and remaudingl affirmed
Frank II. Bowles, Executor, ct al. vs..
L. Il. Bryan, Dallas.
Judgments OF the court Of civil appeals
and district court both reversed and judg-
ment rendered admitting the will to pro-
bate: Brock Walker ct al VS.. Ola Fields
ct al, kaufman.