Chantre v. National Maritime Union Pension and Welfare Plan
| Decision Date | 28 February 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 6977,6977 |
| Citation | 425 S.W.2d 659 |
| Parties | Mrs. Netha CHANTRE, Appellant, v. NATIONAL MARITIME UNION PENSION & WELFARE PLAN et al., Appellees. . Beaumont |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Newton B. Schwartz, Houston, Mack H. Hannah, III, Port Arthur, for appellant.
Mandell & Wright, Houston, for appellees, William L. Wood, Jr., Houston, of counsel.
This is an order of dismissal of appeal.
On September 25, 1967, the trial court entered an order granting defendants, National Maritime Union Pension & Welfare Plan, et al., motion for summary judgment in this case. No motion for new trial or notice of appeal was filed or given within ten days after September 25, 1967.
On October 19, 1967, attorney for appellant, plaintiff below, filed with the trial court a motion asking that the order of September 25, 1967 granting the summary judgment be withdrawn and a new order entered so as to preserve appellant's right to appeal.
Thereafter, the trial judge re-entered the same order as of October 20, 1967, and explained his reasons for so doing by letter of October 20, 1967. This letter essentially stated that the judge was withdrawing his order validly entered on September 25, 1967 and re-entering it as of October 20, solely to 'cooperate so that no one's appellate rights will be cut off.'
Thereafter, attorney for plaintiff gave notice of appeal from the order re-entered as of October 20, and otherwise took action to perfect his appeal.
We sustain defendant's motion to dismiss the appeal for failure to prosecute the same within ten days from the order of September 25, 1967. Rule 353, Section (a), Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. The trial judge did not have authority to extend the time for filing of plaintiff's motion for new trial. Rule 5, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.
In A. F. Jones & Sons v. Republic Supply Co., 151 Tex. 90, 246 S.W .2d 853, the Supreme Court held that notwithstanding any inherent jurisdiction the trial court may have, it does not have inherent authority to disregard the plain language of the Rules of Civil Procedure specifying the time limits within which motion for new trial or notices of appeal must be filed. The court held at page 855:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. v. Wasiak
...v. Fireman's Relief & Retirement Fund Trustees, 489 S.W.2d 743 (Tex.Civ.App.--Austin 1973, no writ); Chantre v. National Maritime Union Pension & Welfare Plan, 425 S.W.2d 659 (Tex.Civ.App.--Beaumont 1968, no writ). See also Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. v. Martinez, 387 S.W.2d 443 (Tex.Civ.App.--......
-
Risher v. Risher, 19067
...by Rule 5. The cases relied on by the majority are distinguishable and are not controlling here. In Chantre v. National Maritime Union Pension & Welfare Plan, 425 S.W.2d 659 (Tex.Civ.App. Beaumont 1968, no writ), the trial court attempted to reenter the same judgment, thereby extending the ......
-
Heldt Brothers Trucks v. Alvarez
...77 S.W.2d 1035 (1934). See also: Texas & New Orleans Railroad Co. v. Arnold, 388 S.W.2d 181 (Tex.1965); Chantre v. National Maritime Union Pension & Welfare Plan, 425 S.W.2d 659 (Tex.Civ.App.--Beaumont 1968, no writ); Howard v. Bolin Warehouses, Inc., 422 S.W.2d 489 (Tex.Civ.App.--Texarkana......
-
Anderson v. Casebolt
...an appeal. See also Brown v. Vander Stucken, 435 S.W.2d 609 (Tex.Civ.App.--San Antonio 1968, no writ); Chantre v. National Maritime Union P. & W. Plan, 425 S.W.2d 659 (Tex.Civ.App.--Beaumont 1968, no writ); Fireman's Fund Insurance Company v. Martinez, 387 S.W.2d 443 (Tex.Civ.App.--Austin 1......