Abilene Library Consortium - 385 Matching Results

Search Results

Results: 1 - 50 next
[Acknowledgement of Commissioners' Judgement in Gulf Pipe Line Company vs. J. W. Bettis et al.]
Document in the condemnation proceeding, Gulf Pipe Line Company vs. J. W. Bettis, his wife and their tenants, acknowledging the judgement of the special commissioners in favor of Bettis.
[Affidavit Cause, Perry Sayles vs. Guy Cade, et al. #2]
Document certifying that Perry Sayles doesn't know the residences of Guy Carter or the residences of Guy Cade's heirs. The document has no cause number and is unsigned.
[Affidavit in Cause, Perry Sayles vs. Guy Cade, et al. #1]
Document certifying that Perry Sayles doesn't know the residences of Guy Carter or the residences of Guy Cade's heirs. The document has no cause number and is unsigned.
[Affidavit of C. F. Petet, September 18, 1928]
Document certifying the log of well of C. U. Connellee No. 2 in Eastland County, Texas is a correct copy of the original log on file in the Oil and Gas Division of the Railroad Commission of Texas.
[Affidavit of F. High]
Affidavit in which F. High swears he is familiar with A. D. Fulton's land, that he has read the affidavit sworn by Will Parmelly, and that the condition of the land is that same as described in Parmelly's affidavit.
[Affidavit of F. M. Wiley and Ben L. Peevey]
Affidavit of F. M. Wiley and Ben L. Peevey, attesting that they accompanied Will Parmelly and I. D. Parmely to examine A. D. Fulton's land and states the natural flow of water on the property. This affidavit is likely in connection to cause no. 6080-A, A. D. Fulton vs. Gulf Pipe Line Company et al.
[Affidavit of Will Parmelly]
Affidavit of Will Parmelly in which he attests to residing in Taylor County for 23 years and discusses the terrain of the Fulton lands. This affidavit is likely part of the documents related to cause no. 6080-A, A. D. Fulton vs. Gulf Pipe Line Company et al.
[Bill for Connellee Hotel, September 25, 1926]
Bill for the Connellee Hotel in Eastland, Texas for John Sayles' stay September 25, 1926. The bill is marked paid and duplicate.
Case No. 12, 096. Copy of Petition for Removal
Copy of the petition for removal in the case, O. M. England et. al. vs. Edwin B. Cox et. al., concerning the pipe lines owned by the Chestnut & Smith Corporation on land owned by O. M. England.
[Catalog For Continental Supply Company: Hardware, August 1, 1925]
Catalog for the hardware sold by the Continental Supply Company. The index at the front lists the items alphabetically and the listings include written descriptions, drawings, and prices.
[Cause No. 29-B: Agreement]
Document in cause no. 29-B, Hattie M. Sayles vs. Nannie F. Downing, Martin and Hamilton, A. C. Wilson, and W. T. Westmoreland, listing a series of facts that are agreed upon by the attorneys of the plaintiff and defendants. This document has corrections to the text in red pencil or ink and is unsigned.
[Cause No. 844: Order in Settling of Bill of Exception]
Document in cause no. 844, Mollie Lee Tomlinson et al. vs. The Independent Torpedo Company, stating that the parties to the suit are given sixty days to file bills of exceptions.
[Cause No. 844: Order in Settling of Bill of Exception]
Document in cause no. 844, Mollie Lee Tomlinson et al. vs. The Independent Torpedo Company, stating that the parties to the suit are given sixty days to file bills of exceptions.
[Cause No. 844: Order Overruling Defendant's Motion for Directed Verdict]
Document in cause no. 844, Mollie Lee Tomlinson et al. vs. The Independent Torpedo Company, overruling the defendant's request to charge the jury to return a verdict for the defendant.
[Cause No. 844: Order Overruling Defendant's Motion for Directed Verdict After Close of Evidence]
Document in cause no. 844, Mollie Lee Tomlinson et al. vs. The Independent Torpedo Company, overruling the defendant's request to charge the jury to return a verdict for the defendant.
[Cause No. 844: Order Overruling General Demurrer and Special Exception]
Document in cause no. 844, Mollie Lee Tomlinson et al. vs. The Independent Torpedo Company, which overrules the defendant's general demurrer and special exception request. There are corrections to the text and a note at the top of the paper.
[Cause No. 844: Order Overruling General Demurrer and Special Exception]
Document in cause no. 844, Mollie Lee Tomlinson et al. vs. The Independent Torpedo Company, which overrules the defendant's general demurrer and special exception request.
[Cause No. 844: Order Overruling Motion to Direct the Verdict]
Document in cause no. 844, Mollie Lee Tomlinson et al. vs. The Independent Torpedo Company, overruling the defendant's request to charge the jury to return a verdict for the defendant.
[Cause No. 844: Order Overruling Motion to Direct the Verdict]
Document in cause no. 844, Mollie Lee Tomlinson et al. vs. The Independent Torpedo Company, overruling the defendant's request to charge the jury to return a verdict for the defendant. There are some corrections to the text and "After Close of Evidence" is written near the bottom of the page.
[Cause No. 844: Order Refusing Defendant's Special Charge No. 1]
Document in cause no. 844, Mollie Lee Tomlinson et al. vs. The Independent Torpedo Company, denying the request to instruct the jury to return a verdict for the defendant.
Cause No. 10940-Sheriff's Sale, September 14, 1926
Document certifying a sheriff's sale in Eastland, Texas. The sale is part of the judgement cause no. 10940, J. L. Chapman, commissioner vs. W. L. Morris and Mrs. W. L. Morris.
[Cause No. 11687: Affidavit of L. D. Hillyer, September, 1928]
Affidavit of L. D. Hillyer, swearing that he took the testimony of John Thompson in the cause, Jake L. Hamon, Jr. et al. vs. United States Torpedo Company and that the transcript is accurate.
[Cause No. 11687: Deposition of J. H. Rapp]
Document in cause no. 11687, Jake L. Hamon Jr. vs. United States Torpedo Company, transcribing the deposition of Jack H. Rapp. Rapp's testimony discusses his association with the United States Torpedo Company and his shooting of an oil well in Eastland County, Texas.
[Cause No. 11687: Oral Deposition of B. C. McDonald, October 17, 1925]
Document in cause no. 11687, Jake L. Hamon Jr. vs. United States Torpedo Company, transcribing the deposition of B. C. McDonald. McDonald recounts his recollections regarding the shooting of an oil well by J. H. Rapp in Eastland County, Texas. There is a receipt from the United States Torpedo Company included in the document.
[Cause No. 11687: Plaintiff's Second Original Petition]
Document in cause no. 11687, Jake L. Hamon, Jr. and Frank R. Ellis vs. United States Torpedo Company, describing Hamon and Ellis's complaints of the torpedo company and listing the damages they claim they are entitled to. The suit regards damage to Hamon's and Ellis's oil well in Eastland County, Texas caused by a representative of the United States Torpedo Company.
[Cause No. 12096: Original Answer of Defendant, W. Parmill]
Document in cause no. 12096, O. M. England et al. vs. Edwin B. Cox et al., detailing W. Parmill's answer to the plaintiff's petition. The answer denies the alleged trespass and states that the plaintiff's complaint is regarding events more than two years previous to the filing of the suit.
[Cause No. 12096: Plea of Privilege of Defendant John Sayles]
Document in cause no. 12096, C. M. England et al. vs. Edwin B. Cox et al., in which John Sayles asserts he is not a resident of Eastland County, Texas and pleads his privilege to be sued in the court of his county of residence, Taylor County, Texas.
[Cause No. 14760: Syllabus]
Document in cause no. 14760, Carter Oil Company vs. Independent Torpedo Company, listing three items related to determining liability for an accident.
[Cause No. 21395-B: Defendant's Request to Dismiss Case]
Document in cause no. 21395-B, The State of Texas vs. Annie Ellis et al., presenting Hattie M. Sayles' deed for the property involved in the suit and requesting that the court dismisses the cause. This document is unsigned.
[Cause No. 21395-B: Petition for Foreclosure for Delinquent Texas]
Document discussing the petition of the State of Texas in cause no. 21395-B, The State of Texas vs. Annie Ellis, Joe Donaldson, and Hattie M. Sayles. The cause is regarding delinquent taxes for the property in Wichita Taxes which is owned by Annie Ellis and subject to liens held by Joe Donaldson and Hattie M. Sayles.
Cause No. 2935-Draft of Notice of Sheriff's Sale
Draft of a notice of sheriff's sale in Abilene, Texas. The properties listed are being sold as part of the judgement against Laura E. Cade, et al. in the cause no. 2935. There are corrections to the text in black ink.
Cause No. 2935-Notice of Sheriff's Sale, August, 1921
Notice of Sheriff's Sale in Abilene, Texas. The properties listed are being sold as part of the judgement against Laura E. Cade, et al. in the cause no. 2935.
[Cause No. 3677: Documents Issued by the Justice of the Peace]
Documents in cause no. 3677, W. O. Rainwater vs. Indian Territory Illuminating Oil Company, issued by the Justice of the Peace of Precinct 1 in Jones County, Texas. The documents include a subpoena issued by the Dallas County sheriff's office requiring the Indian Territory Illuminating Oil Company to appear in court, an order overruling the defendant's plea of privilege, and the court's ruling in favor of the plaintiff.
[Cause No. 5641: Statement of Facts]
Document in the cause no. 5641, L. W. Hilgenburg vs. Independent Torpedo Company, including the "Statement of the Plaintiff's Cause of Action in the Cause," and the testimony of L. W. Hilgenburg. The case relates to damage following shooting the oil wells of Hilgenburg.
[Cause No. 6080-A: Defendant's Answer]
Document in cause no. 6080-A, A. D. Fulton vs. Gulf Pipe Line Company et al., detailing the defendant's answer to A. D. Fulton's petition. The document discusses the complaints made by Fulton and includes the right of way contract related to the property.
[Cause No. 6080-A: Plaintiff's Petition]
Document in cause no. 6080-A, A. D. Fulton vs. Gulf Pipe Line Company et al., detailing A. D. Fulton's complaints of the Gulf Pipe Line Company and Gulf Production Company. There is a note at the top stating this is a copy of the office copy of the document.
[Cause No. 6151]
Document in the cause no. 6151, the consolidated suit, R. L. Over et al. and J. W. Bettis et al. vs. Gulf Pipe Line Company, containing a statement of facts, transcripts of witness testimony, and the exhibits of evidence. The cause is regarding right of ways across the defendants' properties.
[Cause No. 6151: Excerpts for Bills of Exception]
Document in the cause no. 6151, Gulf Pipe Line Company vs. R. L. Over et al. and J. W. Bettis et al., listing the excerpts from the court records which are subject to bills of exception.
[Cause No. 6551: Bill of Exception, C. C. Compere]
Document in the cause no. 6551, Gulf Pipe Line Company vs. R. L. Over et al. and J. W. Bettis et al., stating that the testimony of the witness, C. C. Compere, was not qualified. The presiding judge rejected the plaintiff's request and there is a short note discussing the bill signed "D. S."
[Cause No. 6551: Bill of Exception, Charley Wright's Testimony]
Document in the cause no. 6551, Gulf Pipe Line Company vs. R. L. Over et al. and J. W. Bettis et al., stating that the testimony of the witness, Charley Wright, was not qualified. The first page has a handwritten note reading, "there was no exemption to this testimony see statements p. 94 D. S."
[Cause No. 6551: Bill of Exception, Exhibits 1 and 2]
Document in the cause no. 6551, Gulf Pipe Line Company vs. R. L. Over et al. and J. W. Bettis et al., requesting that the court grant a bill of exception regarding evidence exhibits 1 and 2.
[Cause No. 6733-A: Defendant's Failure to Appear]
Document in cause no. 6733-A, Gulf Pipe Line Company vs. A. D. Fulton, stating that A. D. Fulton was notified of the hearing date and failed to appear. There are handwritten notes on the document and it is unsigned.
[Cause No. 6733-A: Judgement Perpetuating Injunction]
Document in cause no. 6733-A, Gulf Pipe Line Company vs. A. D. Fulton, stating that A. D. Fulton failed to appear and answer the writ of the suit and stating that Fulton should not interfere with the Gulf Pipe Line Company representatives maintaining the pipe line on his land.
[Cause No. 6733-A: Order of Continuation and Temporary Injunction]
Document in cause no. 6733-A, Gulf Pipe Line Company vs. A. D. Fulton, granting a continuation and temporary injunction until the next term of the court. This document is labelled as a copy.
[Cause No. 6733-A: Order of Continuation and Temporary Injunction, October 11, 1928]
Document in cause no. 6733-A, Gulf Pipe Line Company vs. A. D. Fulton, granting a continuation of the cause and temporary injunction. This document is unsigned.
[Cause No. 6733-A: Order of Continuation and Temporary Injunction, October 11, 1928]
Document in cause no. 6733-A, Gulf Pipe Line Company vs. A. D. Fulton, granting a continuation of the cause and temporary injunction. Some of the details are filled in by hand and the document is unsigned.
[Cause No. 6733-A: Order of Continuation, July 1929]
Document in cause no. 6733-A, Gulf Pipe Line Company vs. A. D. Fulton, granting an continuation of the cause until the next regular term of the court.
[Cause No. 6733-A: Order of Continuation, May 20, 1929]
Document in cause no. 6733-A, Gulf Pipe Line Company vs. A. D. Fulton, granting a continuation of the cause until the next term of the court.
[Cause No. 6733-A: Writ of Injunction, 1928]
Document in cause no. 6733-A, Gulf Pipe Line Company vs. A. D. Fulton, setting the hearing date, April 9, 1928. There are handwritten notes and corrections to the document.
[Cause No. 6885-A: Documents Requesting a New Trial and the Judge's Decision]
Documents in the cause no. 6885-A, Mrs. J. E. Drummond vs. Gulf Pipe Line Company et al., requesting the court set aside the jury's verdict in this cause and grant a new trial to the Gulf Pipe Line Company et al.. The first two documents are the motion and an amended motion requesting a new trial on behalf of the Gulf Pipe Line Company and Gulf Production Company, and the third document is the judge's decision to overrule the motion.
Back to Top of Screen