Buttery v. Betts

Decision Date22 November 1967
Docket NumberNo. B--364,B--364
Citation422 S.W.2d 149
PartiesHenry BUTTERY et al., Relators, v. Hon. Charles O. BETTS, District Judge, Respondent.
CourtTexas Supreme Court

Carlos Ashley, Jr., Llano, John W. Stayton, Fred B. Werkenthin, Austin, for relators.

Crawford Martin, Atty. Gen., Sam Kelley and Robert Flowers, Asst. Attys. Gen., Jacobsen & Long, Jake Jacobsen and Joe Long, Austin, Moursund & Ferguson, Tom Ferguson, Johnson City, for respondents.

POPE, Justice.

H. L. Buttery and others as relators, filed this original proceeding for a writ of mandamus directing Charles O. Betts, Judge of the 98th District Court of Travis County to vacate an order granting a new trial in a cause filed by relator. In our opinion the order granting the new trial is void because the court lost jurisdiction thirty days after rendition of judgment. Relators are entitled to a writ of mandamus. Article 5, § 3 of Tex.Const., Vernon's Ann.St.; art. 1733, Vernon's Ann.Civ.Stat.

Relators made application to the Savings and Loan Commission for a charter for a new savings and loan association in Llano to be known as the Peoples Savings & Loan Association. Community Savings & Loan Association, one of the respondents in this mandamus action, already was authorized to transact business in Texas with its principal place of business in Fredericksburg. It had previously made application for authorization to establish a branch office in Llano. The Savings and Loan Commissioner held separate hearings on Peoples' and Community's applications and by separate orders denied both of them.

Relators, on behalf of Peoples, and Community separately appealed to the 98th District Court of Travis County. Relators' appeal was docketed under number 154,091 and was styled Henry Buttery et al. v. James O. Gerst, Savings and Loan Commissioner. Community's appeal was docketed under number 154,082 and was styled Community Savings & Loan Association v. James O. Gerst, Savings and Loan Commissioner. Each association intervened in the other case to protest the grant of the requested authorization.

Relators, joined by the Commissioner, filed a motion to consolidate their case with the Community case for all purposes pursuant to Rule 174(a), Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Community resisted the motion, and after a hearing, the trial judge entered separate but similar orders in each case. The order in the Buttery or Peoples case provides:

'* * * (t)hat the motion should be denied insofar as it requests a full and complete consolidation of this cause with cause number 154,082 styled Community Savings & Loan Association, Plaintiff, v. James O. Gerst, Savings & Loan Commissioner of Texas, Defendants, but that said motion should be granted to the extent that said cases by consolidated for the purposes of trial only.

'It is further ORDERED that the motion, insofar as it requests consolidation of the instant cause with said cause number 154,082 other than for trial only is denied, to which latter action of the court the Plaintiffs herein and the Defendant, James O. Gerst, in open court duly excepted.'

At the trial, two separate hearings were conducted. Separate statements of facts and separate docket notations were made in each cause. On May 9, 1967 the trial court rendered two separate judgments, each of which granted the respective applications. The problem in this case arises out of the steps taken after judgment.

Relators, on behalf of Peoples, filed a timely motion for new trial and notice of appeal in cause number 154,082, the Community case in which they had intervened. The motion complained of the trial court's failure to consolidate the two cases for all purposes instead of 'for the purposes of trial only.' Community, joined by the Commissioner, then filed a document in the same case entitled 'Motion to Set Hearing on Motion for New Trial.' The movants, by this motion, joined in relators' prayer for a new trial in the Community case, but they also asked for a new trial in the Peoples case. Community filed no motion for new trial in cause number 154,091, the Peoples case. The trial court on June 19, 1967, after hearing the motion for new trial, granted a new trial in both the Community case and the Peoples case. Relators, for Peoples, now seek a writ of mandamus to require the respondent judge to vacate the order granting a new trial in the Peoples case, because the judgment in that case became final thirty days after its entry on May 9, 1967.

The trial court's order for consolidation was 'for the purposes of trial...

To continue reading

Request your trial
35 cases
  • Dikeman v. Snell
    • United States
    • Texas Supreme Court
    • January 24, 1973
    ...450 S.W.2d 56, 59 (Tex.1970); Finlay v. Jones, 435 S.W.2d 136 (Tex.1968), which used the term 'invalid' instead of 'void'; Buttery v. Betts, 422 S.W.2d 149 (Tex.1968); Fulton v. Finch, 162 Tex. 351, 346 S.W.2d 823, 825, 829 (1961); McEwen v. Harrison, 162 Tex. 125, 345 S.W.2d 706, 710 In ha......
  • Carrera v. Marsh
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • January 20, 1993
    ...to grant or deny the order to vacate the motion for new trial, the above orders are declared null and void. See Buttery v. Betts, 422 S.W.2d 149 (Tex.1968); Cobb v. English, 579 S.W.2d 22, 24 (Tex.App.--Beaumont), rev'd on other grounds, 593 S.W.2d 674 (Tex.1979); Lawler v. Neathery, 509 S.......
  • McRoberts v. Ryals
    • United States
    • Texas Supreme Court
    • June 30, 1993
    ...v. Ranchlander Nat'l Bank, 724 S.W.2d 851 (Tex.App.--Austin 1986, no writ). Philbrook itself relied upon our decision in Buttery v. Betts, 422 S.W.2d 149 (Tex.1967). This issue is governed, however, by Mueller v. Saravia, 826 S.W.2d 608 (Tex.1992), which involved the filing of a motion for ......
  • Boyd v. Gillman Film Corp.
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • November 7, 1969
    ...District Judge as it constituted no impediment to his proceeding with a re-trial of the case.' In a more recent case, Buttery v. Betts, 422 S.W.2d 149 (Tex.Sup.1967), Justice Pope, speaking for the court, in considering an order which had been entered more than thirty days in violation of R......
  • 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