Dignowity v. Fly
| Decision Date | 09 June 1920 |
| Docket Number | (No. 3372.) |
| Citation | 223 S.W. 165 |
| Parties | DIGNOWITY et al. v. FLY et al. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Jos. Murray and Moody & Boyles, of Houston, for respondents.
On February 5, 1919, a judgment was rendered by this court awarding a writ of mandamus to Hallie B. Dignowity, Dorothy Currier, and Donald E. Currier, against the honorable Court of Civil Appeals of the Fourth Supreme Judicial District of Texas and the judges thereof, the clerk of the court, Hon. Joseph Murray, Imogene T. Hambleton, and the Southwest Texas Baptist Hospital, directing that a certain mandate be issued at any time within 12 months from the 6th day of February, 1918, upon the payment of court costs or upon the making of affidavit in lieu thereof. The grounds for the issuance of the writ are stated in the opinion of the court, reported in 210 S. W. 505.
When this judgment was entered there were already on file two affidavits of inability to pay the costs or to give security therefor. The affidavits were filed after the institution of the original proceeding for mandamus, and were not before us when our judgment was rendered. The affidavits were made by Hallie B. Dignowity and Dorothy Currier. Donald E. Currier, who was a party to the suit pro forma as the husband of Dorothy Currier, did not make an affidavit, but that of his wife covered his inability to pay the costs or to furnish security, and showed that his failure to join in the affidavit was due to his being at the time engaged in active service with the army of the United States.
It is not denied that the same effect should be given to affidavits already on file as to affidavits which might have been afterwards filed. The sufficiency of the affidavits to entitle the relators to the issuance of the mandate, under the previous order of this court, is challenged for only two reasons. The first is that Donald E. Currier did not join in the affidavits. The second is that under a contest of the affidavits, filed in May, 1919, by the clerk and by an adverse party, the Court of Civil Appeals adjudged that the averments of the affidavits were not true.
In our opinion, the, affidavits substantially complied with article 1557 of the Revised Statutes, in the absence of objection thereto.
This conclusion is not different from that of the Court of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Bostian v. Ridge
...N.W. 934; Thorndale Mercantile Co. v. Continental Gin Co., 241 S.W. 260; Dignowity v. Court of Civil Appeals, 110 Tex. 613, 210 S.W. 505, 223 S.W. 165; Murphy v. Farmers' Bank, 11 S.W. (2d) 1066. (5) Relator as trustee in bankruptcy of Bessie Eichenberg has no interest in the estate of the ......
-
State ex rel. Bostian v. Ridge
...N.W. 934; Thorndale Mercantile Co. v. Continental Gin Co., 241 S.W. 260; Dignowity v. Court of Civil Appeals, 110 Tex. 613, 210 S.W. 505, 223 S.W. 165; Murphy v. Farmers' Bank, 11 S.W.2d 1066. Relator as trustee in bankruptcy of Bessie Eichenberg has no interest in the estate of the decease......
-
Bichsel v. Heard
...that Court has had an opportunity to review our judgment, if a writ of error is granted. Dignowity v. Fly, 110 Tex. 613, 210 S.W. 505, 223 S.W. 165; John F. Grant Lumber Co. v. Bell, Tex.Civ.App., 302 S.W.2d 714; Johnston v. Stinson, Tex.Civ.App., 233 S.W.2d 151; Huntress v. State, Tex.Civ.......
-
Continental Gin Co. v. Thorndale Mercantile Co.
...such application be denied or dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Dignowity v. Court of Civil Appeals, 110 Tex. 613, 615, 210 S. W. 505, 223 S. W. 165; Texas Co. v. Clark & Co. (Tex. Com. App.) 244 S. W. The Supreme Court, in Dignowity v. Court of Civil Appeals, supra, in support of the con......