Case Name: RADOFF BROS., Inc., Appellant, v. GUARDIAN TRUST COMPANY, Independent Executor, et al., Appellees. RUMMAGE COMPANY, Inc., Appellant, v. GUARDIAN TRUST COMPANY, Independent Executor, et al., Appellees; H. BERGMAN,. Appellant, v. GUARDIAN TRUST COMPANY, Independent Executor, et al., Appellees. MYSTIC WASHER COMPANY, Inc., Appellant, v. GUARDIAN TRUST COMPANY, Independent Executor, et al., Appellees
Court: Texas Courts of Civil Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1933-01-31
Citations: 57 S.W.2d 609
Docket Number: Nos. 9802-9805
Parties: RADOFF BROS., Inc., Appellant, v. GUARDIAN TRUST COMPANY, Independent Executor, et al., Appellees. RUMMAGE COMPANY, Inc., Appellant, v. GUARDIAN TRUST COMPANY, Independent Executor, et al., Appellees. H. BERGMAN,. Appellant, v. GUARDIAN TRUST COMPANY, Independent Executor, et al., Appellees. MYSTIC WASHER COMPANY, Inc., Appellant, v. GUARDIAN TRUST COMPANY, Independent Executor, et al., Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter Second Series
Volume: 57
Pages: 609–610

Head Matter:
RADOFF BROS., Inc., Appellant, v. GUARDIAN TRUST COMPANY, Independent Executor, et al., Appellees. RUMMAGE COMPANY, Inc., Appellant, v. GUARDIAN TRUST COMPANY, Independent Executor, et al., Appellees. H. BERGMAN,. Appellant, v. GUARDIAN TRUST COMPANY, Independent Executor, et al., Appellees. MYSTIC WASHER COMPANY, Inc., Appellant, v. GUARDIAN TRUST COMPANY, Independent Executor, et al., Appellees.
Nos. 9802-9805.
Court of Civil Appeals of Texas, Galveston.
Jan. 31, 1933.
Rehearing Denied March 9, 1933.
A. M. Waugh and C. L. Bass, both of Houston, for appellant.
Lewis & Burr, of Houston, for appellee R. L. Autrey.
Sam Neathery and W.' D. Orem, both of Houston, for appellee city of Houston.
Baker, Botts, Andrews & Wharton, E. G. Coates, and John T. McCullough, all of Houston, for appellee Guardian Trust Co.

Opinion:
PLEASANTS, Chief Justice.
These are companion cases to that of Radoff v. Guardian Trust Company (Tex. Civ. App.) 57 S.W.(2d) 607, and by agreement of the parties were submitted with the Radoff Case.
The controlling question in each of the cases is the same, and the pertinent allegations of the petition to which appellees' pleas of misjoinder were sustained are identical in each case.
We need only refer to our opinion in the Radoff Case for our reasons for affirming the judgment in each of these cases.