Dallas Bank & Trust Co. v. Thompson, Motion No. 11286; No. 11947.
| Decision Date | 12 January 1935 |
| Docket Number | Motion No. 11286; No. 11947. |
| Parties | DALLAS BANK & TRUST CO. v. THOMPSON. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
McBride, Hamilton, Lipscomb & Wood, of Dallas, for relator.
J. N. Townsend, of Dallas, for respondent.
The relator seeks relief in aid of an appealed cause, to stay the execution or enforcement of a final judgment of a district court of Dallas county, pending a hearing on the appeal. For the judgment appealed from, if a final judgment as here contended by the relator, to which we express no opinion as the precise question must be considered by us on the appeal, the statutes of this state afforded the relator a clear remedy to stay its enforcement by the timely filing of a supersedeas bond, which was not done. The appeal is affected by the relator filing in the court below a cost bond, so this court has no power to stay the execution or enforcement of the judgment. It is clear that the statute affords the relator the right to suspend the judgment against it by giving the supersedeas bond, as provided by law, and thus have stayed the paying out of the money from the district clerk to the receiver, until the final determination of the case. Having a complete provisional remedy at law, it is not entitled to the injunction.
Application refused.
On Motion for Rehearing.
On motion for rehearing, the relator presents what it contends to be a compliance with the prerequisites of the statute to suspend the enforcement of a judgment, by the filing of a supersedeas bond "in a sum in excess of double the amount of the judgment, interest and costs," and again urges the issuance of a writ of injunction to compel respondent to suspend the enforcement of the order of the trial judge consolidating two causes, and directing the clerk of the district courts of Dallas county to turn over to respondent, as receiver, the sum of $23,000, deposited into the registry of the court by interpleaders.
Article 2275 provides that: "Upon the filing of a proper supersedeas bond, the appeal or writ of error shall be held to be perfected, and the execution of the judgment shall be stayed, and should execution have been issued thereon, the clerk shall forthwith issue a supersedeas." The bond, urged here as a ground for rehearing and to grant an injunction, was filed in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gonzalez v. Texas Employers Insurance Association
...did have the right to supersede, as held in Burch v. Johnson, 445 S.W.2d 631 (Tex .Civ.App.--El Paso 1969, no writ) and Dallas Bank & Trust Co. v. Thompson, 78 S.W.2d 740 (Tex.Civ.App.--Dallas 1935, no writ). Consequently, the Association argues, the duty rested on the appellant as next fri......
-
Anderson v. Pioneer Building & Loan Ass'n
...See, also, Dunlap v. Rotge, Tex. Civ.App., 85 S.W.2d 650; Vinson v. McPherson, Tex.Civ.App., 54 S.W.2d 829; Dallas Bank & Trust Co. v. Thompson, Tex. Civ.App., 78 S.W.2d 740; Cleveland v. Alpine Lumber Co., Tex.Civ.App., 70 S.W.2d 257; Bryan v. Luhning, Tex.Civ.App., 106 S.W.2d 403; 3 Tex.J......
-
Pace v. McEwen
...a complete provisional remedy at law, the relators are not entitled to the relief sought. A similar holding was made in Dallas Bank & Trust Co. v. Thompson, 78 S.W.2d 740 (Tex.Civ.App.-Dallas 1935, no In Landrum v. Centennial Rural High School Dist., 146 S.W.2d 799 (Tex.Civ.App.-Austin 1940......
-
Burch v. Johnson
...leave to file the petition for writ of injunction and writ of prohibition in the Court of Civil Appeals is denied. See Dallas Bank & Trust Co. v. Thompson, 78 S.W.2d 740 (no ...