Coke v. Pottorff
| Decision Date | 15 May 1940 |
| Docket Number | No. 13974.,13974. |
| Parties | COKE et al. v. POTTORFF et al. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Kimble County; W. C. Jackson, Judge.
Proceeding by Christine Coke and others against George B. Pottorff, Sr., and others, on motion for leave to file original petition for mandamus to require district court judge to dismiss relators' cause of action for wrongful death in response to relators' motion for nonsuit.
Relators' motion for leave to file original petition for mandamus overruled.
Dent Taylor and Jim Weatherby, both of Kerrville, for relators.
Weaver Baker, of Junction, for respondents.
Christine Coke, in her own behalf and that of her minor daughter, brought suit in the District Court of Bandera County, against George B. Pottorff, for damages for the alleged wrongful death of Bryan L. Coke. The venue of the suit was changed to Kimble County upon Pottorff's plea of privilege. Upon the transfer of the case to Kimble County Pottorff filed an answer and by way of cross-action sought to recover of the plaintiffs damages for alleged malicious institution of the suit.
Thereafter, the plaintiffs below timely filed and presented their motion for leave to take a nonsuit, "without prejudice to either party, present or future, for the reason that the plaintiff does not at this time desire to press her cause of action, if any." Pottorff, as defendant below, resisted, and the trial judge overruled, the plaintiffs' motion for nonsuit.
Mrs. Coke, for her minor daughter and herself, has now filed in this Court her motion for leave to file an original petition for mandamus to require the judge of the court below to dismiss the cause of action set up by the plaintiffs, in response to their motion for nonsuit. We overrule the motion for leave to file, on the ground that the petition tendered with the motion does not set up probable cause for mandamus.
It is a general rule that it is reversible error to deny leave to a plaintiff to take a nonsuit upon his cause of action, even in the presence of a cross-action by the defendant; the plaintiff may take a nonsuit in any event, but his doing so will not be permitted to prevent the defendant from proceeding with his cross-action for affirmative relief. 15 Tex.Jur. pp. 236, 243, §§ 3, 10.
An order overruling a plaintiff's motion for leave to take a nonsuit is not itself appealable. 3 Tex.Jur. p. 135, § 70; Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Ft. Worth St. Ry. Co., 75 Tex. 82, 12 S.W. 977.
Nor is the writ of mandamus available to take the place or perform the office of appeal. 22 Tex.Jur. p. 573, § 32.
For, while it is error upon the part of a trial court to overrule a timely motion for leave to take a nonsuit, mandamus will not lie to compel the trial judge to correct such error. 28 Tex.Jur. p. 579, § 36; Matlock v. Smith, 96 Tex. 211, 71 S.W. 956, 957. "If a judge errs," said Chief Justice Gaines in the cited case, "however palpably erroneous...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pope v. Ferguson
...rule as to courts of civil appeals, see Yantis v. McCallum, 121 S.W.2d 610 (Tex.Civ.App.--Dallas, Original Proceeding, 1938); Coke v. Pottorff, 140 S.W.2d 586 (Tex.Civ.App.--San Antonio, Original Proceeding, 1940); American Bottling Co. v. Briggs, 232 S.W.2d 103 (Tex.Civ.App.--San Antonio, ......
-
Parr v. United States, 15612.
...though not appealable for want of finality, may be complained of on an appeal from a final judgment in the cause, Coke v. Pottorff, Tex.Civ.App., 140 S.W. 2d 586, and others that, under Texas Rules of Civil Procedure expressly so providing, appeals will lie from certain interlocutory As his......
-
Iley v. Hughes
...Tex. 375, 60 S.W. 665, 666; Robertson v. Work, 114 Tex. 461, 270 S.W. 1006; Mattaei v. Clark, 110 Tex. 114, 216 S.W. 856; Coke v. Pittorff, Tex.Civ.App., 140 S.W.2d 586. The foregoing rule was recognized by this Court in Aycock v. Clark, supra, when we said (94 Tex. 375, 60 S.W. 666): 'In t......
-
Amarillo Civil Service Commission v. Vitatoe
...375, 60 S.W. 665, 666; Robertson v. Work, 114 Tex. 461, 270 S.W. 1006; Matthaei v. Clark, 110 Tex. 114, 216 S.W. 856; Coke v. Pottorff,Tex.Civ.App., 140 S.W.2d 586. The foregoing rule was recognized by this Court in Aycock v. Clark, supra, when we said (94 Tex. 375, 60 S.W. 666): '. . . In ......