Case Name: W. H. Duval et ux v. E. E. Clark, Jr., Trustee, et al.; The State of Texas v. Jack Danciger et al.
Court: Supreme Court of Texas
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1942-01-14
Citations: 138 Tex. 186
Docket Number: No. 7936; No. 7937
Parties: W. H. Duval et ux v. E. E. Clark, Jr., Trustee, et al. The State of Texas v. Jack Danciger et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Reports
Volume: 138
Pages: 186–187

Head Matter:
W. H. Duval et ux v. E. E. Clark, Jr., Trustee, et al. The State of Texas v. Jack Danciger et al.
No. 7936.
No. 7937.
Decided January 14, 1942.
(157 S. W., 2d Series, 626.)
In the case of Duval v. Clark, the appellant was represented by W. V. Dunnam, of Waco, and H. C. Stinnett, of Gatesville, and appellees were represented by Hamilton, Lipscomb, Wood and Swift, of Dallas.
In the case of State v. Danciger, the appellant was represented by Kinsley, Walker & Terry, of Austin, and appellee was represented by Kemp, Smith, Goggin & White, of El Paso.

Opinion:
Per Curiam :
In each of the above causes the Court of Civil Appeals has certified certain questions of law to this Court. It appears, however, from an examination of the records that each of these cases may lawfully reach this Court on application for writ of error. For this reason, and by virtue of the provisions of Rule 461 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, this Court declines to allow the questions to be certified. The certificates are dismissed.
Opinion delivered January 14, 1942.