Gaston v. J. I. Campbell Co.
Cases that cite this one
19 later published cases cite this decision.
- East Texas Title Co. v. Parchman (Tex. App. 1938)
- City Nat. Bank of Wellington v. Morgan (Tex. App. 1924)
- Howe Grain & Mercantile Co. v. A. B. Crouch Grain Co. (Tex. App. 1919)
- Malone v. National Bank of Commerce of Kansas City (Tex. App. 1913)
- Joyce v. First Nat. Bank of Snyder (Tex. App. 1936)
- Malone v. Republic Nat. Bank & Trust Co. (Tex. App. 1934)
- First State Bank of Eastland v. Phelps (Tex. App. 1934)
- Shaw v. Halbert (Tex. App. 1934)
- First State Bank of Eastland v. Phelps (Tex. App. 1934)
- W. J. Stevens Co. v. Novice State Bank (Tex. Comm'n App. 1928)
- James McCord Co. v. Citizens' Hotel Co. (Tex. App. 1926)
- Hamilton-Turner Grocery Co. v. Hander (Tex. App. 1923)
- Hall v. San Jacinto State Bank (Tex. App. 1923)
- Taylor Feed Pen Co. v. Taylor Nat. Bank (Tex. Comm'n App. 1919)
- Galveston-Houston Interurban Land Co. v. Dow (Tex. App. 1917)
- McCaleb v. Boerne Electric Power & Mfg. Co. (Tex. App. 1915)
- Georgetown Mercantile Co. v. First Nat. Bank of Georgetown (Tex. App. 1914)
- White v. Young (Tex. App. 1912)
- St. Louis Union Trust Co. v. St. Louis & S. E. Ry. Co. (Tex. App. 1912)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
In an opinion rendered at a former day of this court it was ordered “that the judgment of the Court o'f Civil Appeals be and the same is hereby reversed, and the cause is remanded, with instructions to the district court to render judgment in favor of Gaston & Ayres for the full amount of the note sued on and for all costs.” Complaint is made in a motion for rehearing that this order is obscure, and that it is not entirely clear from the opinion whether the court intended to instruct the district court to render judgment for the principal of the note sued on and all interest up to the date of the judgment, or to render judgments for the principal and for interest up to the time the property of the J. I. Campbell Company went into the hands of the receiver, if the company should be insolvent, or up to the date of the judgment, if the company should prove to be solvent.
We think the motion is meritorious, and that the judgment is obscure in the respect noted. For this reason the judgment heretofore directed to he entered will be modified, so as to direct the district court to render judgment for the interveners, Gaston & Ayres, for the principal of the note sued on, with interest as specified in the note up to the date of the judgment, if the company shall be found to be solvent, together with its attorney’s fees; but, if said company should be found to be insolvent, then interest should be allowed up to the 14th day of February, 1908, when the receivership proceedings began, and the court is directed to enter judgment accordingly. Thomas v. Car Co., 149 U. S. 95, 13 Sup. Ct. 824, 37 L. Ed. 663; People v. Loan & Trust Co., 172 N. Y. 379, 65 N. E. 200; Brazelton & Johnson v. J. I. Campbell Co. (Civ. App.) 108 S. W. 773; First National Bank of Houston v. J. I. Campbell Co., 52 Tex. Civ. App. 445, 114 S. W. 887; Atlantic Nat. Bank v. Four States Grocer Co. (Civ. App.) 135 S. W. 1135.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.