Couch v. State
Decision Date | 31 January 1985 |
Docket Number | No. 09-84-345,09-84-345 |
Citation | 688 S.W.2d 154 |
Parties | O. Dean COUCH, Jr. D/B/A Couch Mortgage Company, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. CV. |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Joe H. Reynolds, Reynolds, Allen & Cook, Houston, for appellant.
Alvin K. James, Asst. Atty. Gen., Highway Div., Houston, for appellee.
OPINION ON MOTION TO RECONSIDER ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL
On September 6, 1983, Appellant withdrew from the trial court registry the sum of $568,657.00 which was the total amount of the award of the Special Commissioners in this condemnation proceeding.
On June 4, 1984, in accordance with the verdict of the jury, the State was ordered to pay an additional $51,369.00 plus interest thereon from September 1, 1983, until paid. This order was signed by Honorable Ellis A. Oualline, Jr., Judge, County Court at Law # 1, Montgomery County.
Thereafter, on July 10, 1984, the State deposited into the court's registry the sum of $55,829.48 which included interest to date and which sum represented the total, full and complete satisfaction of the judgment. This deposit by the State was approved by Judge Oualline.
Eight days later the Appellant moved to withdraw the entire $55,829.48. The trial judge immediately ordered the county clerk to issue and deliver a check payable to O. Dean Couch, Jr., d/b/a Couch Mortgage Company, for the total amount. The attorney of record for the Appellant acknowledged receipt of a check in the total amount payable to the Appellant. The receipt is dated July 27, 1984. Thereafter, the said check was cashed and negotiated and "credited to the account of the within named payee, The Woodlands National Bank, The Woodlands, Texas".
The correct general rule, we perceive, is set out in Carle v. Carle, 149 Tex. 469, 234 S.W.2d 1002 (Tex.1950). At 1004, the court wrote:
Our case is remarkably similar to Latimer v. State, 328 S.W.2d 242 (Tex.Civ.App.--Beaumont 1959, writ ref'd n.r.e.) After citing and following Carle, supra, the civil appeals court wrote:
We find and hold that Latimer, supra, is dispositive of this appeal. We overrule the motion to reconsider order dismissing appeal. We dismiss this appeal as of January 31, 1985.
DISMISSED.
I respectfully dissent and would re-instate the appeal. The majority perceives the correct general rule to be set out in Carle v. Carle, 149 Tex. 469, 234 S.W.2d 1002 (Tex.1950). I agree, but would hold the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
HARLOW LAND CO., LTD. v. CITY OF MELISSA
...court's judgment in a condemnation case, the landowner's appeal is rendered moot and must be dismissed. Couch v. State, 688 S.W.2d 154, 155 (Tex.App.-Beaumont 1985, writ ref'd n.r.e.); Bowling v. State, 353 S.W.2d 893, 893 (Tex.Civ.App.-Amarillo 1962, no writ); Latimer, 328 S.W.2d at 242-43......