Baumberger v. Allen

Decision Date19 February 1908
Citation107 S.W. 526
PartiesBAUMBERGER et al. v. ALLEN et al.
CourtTexas Supreme Court

Action by D. P. Allen and others against Charles Baumberger and others. From an order refusing to dissolve an injunction, defendants appeal to the Court of Civil Appeals, which certifies a question to the Supreme Court. Question answered.

Bertrand & Arnold, for appellants. Keller & Keller, for appellees.

BROWN, J.

Certified question from the Court of Civil Appeals for the Fourth district, as follows:

"In the above-entitled and numbered cause, pending on appeal in this the Court of Civil Appeals for the Fourth Supreme Judicial District of Texas on motion for rehearing, a question of law arises which this court deems advisable to submit to your honorable court for adjudication, and has accordingly directed me to certify to your honorable court the following question:

"Explanation: D. P. Allen filed petition in the district court on July 11, 1907, with the following fiat of the judge written thereon: `Upon the filing of this petition and plaintiff giving bond in the sum of two hundred and fifty dollars, conditioned as required by law, the clerk will issue a temporary writ of injunction as prayed for. J. L. Camp, Judge.' The writ was issued and served same day. On July 15, 1907, defendants Baumberger and De Leon filed their motion to dissolve said injunction. On July 31, 1907, plaintiffs and defendants amended. On same day the court heard the motion to dissolve upon testimony, and overruled the motion and adjudged as follows, as appears from the minutes: `And the temporary writ of injunction heretofore issued on the 11th day of July, 1907, commanding the defendants to desist and refrain from removing the said barn of the defendant Charles Baumberger to or near the southwest corner of lot 1 in block 43 on the corner of Evergreen and Nixon streets, in the city of San Antonio, Bexar county, Tex., belonging to said defendant Charles Baumberger, or to any other point on said lot where the same will interfere with the light and air of plaintiff's home, or become a nuisance to said plaintiffs, and the same remain in full force and effect until the further orders of this court.' From this order defendants gave notice of appeal and filed transcript in this court on August 7, 1907, which was within 15 days from the last-mentioned order, but more than 15 days from the fiat of the judge, indorsed on the original petition, but not otherwise, `entered of record.'

"Question: Has this court jurisdiction to consider the appeal?"

We reply that the Court of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
29 cases
  • Smith v. Coleman
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • April 20, 1939
    ...257, 59 S.W.2d 364, 372; Griffith v. State, Tex. Civ.App., 210 S.W. 293; Ex parte Olson, 111 Tex. 601, 243 S.W. 773; Baumberger v. Allen, 101 Tex. 352, 107 S.W. 526; 32 C.J. 28; Railroad Commission of Texas v. Real, Tex.Civ.App., 80 S.W.2d 494; Allred v. Beggs, 125 Tex. 584, 84 S.W.2d 223, ......
  • In re Contas: Lion Coal Co.
    • United States
    • Wyoming Supreme Court
    • September 9, 1930
    ... ... its right of appeal in these cases by reason of omissions of ... the clerk of the court below. Moreover, as we read the ... decision in Allen v. Lewis, 26 Wyo. 85, 177 P. 433, ... the provisions of 6410 C. S. provide time for the trial court ... to review the record, and determine whether ... appeal, the transcript must have been filed in this court ... within 20 days from April 18, 1925. Baumberger v ... Allen, 101 Tex. 352, 107 S.W. 526; Scott v. Board of ... Trustees, (Tex. Civ. App.) 223 S.W. 253; Dallas ... County, etc. v. Pruitt, (Tex ... ...
  • City of Ft. Worth v. Capps Land Co.
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • May 11, 1918
    ...the exercise of the right of appeal, and may by law increase, diminish, or change civil and criminal jurisdiction. Baumberger v. Allen, 101 Tex. 352, 107 S. W. 526; Powdrill v. Powdrill, 134 S. W. 272; Muela v. Moye, 185 S. W. 331; S. A. & A. P. Ry. Co. v. Blair, 108 Tex. 434, 196 S. W. 502......
  • Robinson v. Theis
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • April 11, 1923
    ...by a number of decisions which do not all co-ordinate by any means. Riggins v. Thompson, 96 Tex. 154, 71 S. W. 14; Baumberger v. Allen, 101 Tex. 352, 107 S. W. 526; Ex parte Zuccaro, 106 Tex. 197, 163 S. W. 579, Ann. Cas. 1917B, 121; Hoskins v. Cauble (Tex. Civ. App.) 198 S. W. 629; Houston......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT