Port Arthur Rice Milling Co. v. Beaumont Rice Mills
Cases that cite this one
29 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.
- Cox v. Clay (Tex. App. 1950)
- Federal Crude Oil Co. v. Yount-Lee Oil Co. (Tex. App. 1934)
- American Exchange Nat. Bank of Dallas v. Keeley (Tex. App. 1931)
- Galveston, H. & S. A. Ry. Co. v. Walker (Tex. App. 1914)
- Michael Dion Floyd A/K/A Michael D. Floyd v. State (Tex. App. 2006)
- Suzanne McElwee and Hulan Dwight McElwee v. Estate of Howard E. Joham (Tex. App. 2000)
- Dunn v. Reliance Life & Accident Insurance Co. of America (Tex. App. 1966)
- Murphy v. Honeycutt (Tex. App. 1946)
- Warnecke v. Broad (Tex. 1942)
- Condor Petroleum Co. v. Greene (Tex. App. 1942)
- Warnecke v. Broad (Tex. 1942)
- Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Presley (Tex. App. 1939)
- Hendron v. Yount-Lee Oil Co. (Tex. App. 1938)
- Brooks v. Temple Lumber Co. (Tex. App. 1937)
- West Texas Utilities Co. v. Ellis (Tex. App. 1937)
- Stein v. Gulf Production Co. (Tex. App. 1934)
- County of Los Angeles v. Metropolitan Casualty Insurance Co. (Cal. Ct. App. 1933)
- Steele v. Glenn (Tex. App. 1933)
- McNeill v. Simpson (Tex. Comm'n App. 1931)
- Angelina County v. Bond (Tex. App. 1929)
- Jones County v. Moore (Tex. App. 1928)
- Blucher v. Eubank (Tex. Comm'n App. 1928)
- Boerner v. Cicero Smith Lumber Co. (Tex. App. 1927)
- First Nat. Bank of Mt. Calm v. Roller (Tex. App. 1927)
- Whitehead v. Reiger (Tex. App. 1926)
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
Crediting counsel with a proper spirit of fairness and candor in presenting this motion, we must say that a strange persistency in misunderstanding and misstating the opinion of this court is manifest. We state the true situation:
1. The Court of Civil Appeals held that the statute of limitation began to run from the date of the conversion of the rice by the defendants in error. The evidence is undisputed that the Beaumont Rice Mills entered into a secret agreement with Burge to aid him in defrauding the Port Arthur Rice Milling Company of its debt and for that purpose concealed the transaction with Burge.. This court held that the statute of limitation began to run from the discovery of the fraud.
2. This court acted alone upon the facts found by the Court of Civil Appeals and the undisputed evidence of the concealment of the fraud by defendants .in error. Counsel for plaintiff in error has not denied the fraud, did not do so .in argument, but virtually admitted it.
3. Each partner was liable for the acts of the others within the scope of the business. A verdict against the partnership was against each partner. If, however, there was error in the form of the judgment of the trial court, it should have been corrected in that court. This court exercised its superior authority in accordance with the Constitution and law, and the statement that it has" transcended its constitutional authority is wholly unfounded.
The motion for rehearing is overruled, and it is ordered that the issuing of thé mandate be stayed for 30 days to enable defendant in error to make application for a writ of error to the Supreme Court of the United States.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.