Texas Supreme Court, 1896

Bonnell v. Prince

Bonnell v. Prince
Texas Supreme Court · Decided January 6, 1896 · Gaihes
33 S.W. 852; 89 Tex. 104; 1896 Tex. LEXIS 325 (South Western Reporter)

Bonnell v. Prince

Opinion of the Court

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.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.