Douglas Oil Co. v. State

• Citation: 76 S.W.2d 1043
• Decision Date: 28 November 1934
• Docket Number: No. 6761.,6761.
• Parties: DOUGLAS OIL CO. et al. v. STATE et al.
• Court: Supreme Court of Texas

76 S.W.2d 1043

DOUGLAS OIL CO. et al. v. STATE et al.

No. 6761.

Supreme Court of Texas.

November 28, 1934.

Certified Questions from Court of Civil Appeals of Third Supreme Judicial District.

Suit by the State against the Douglas Oil Company and others, in which defendant named and others appealed to the Court of Civil Appeals, which certified a question.

Certificate dismissed.

See, also, 122 Tex. 369, 61 S.W.(2d) 804.

Francis H. DeGroot, of Duluth, Minn., Chas. A. Holden, of Tulsa, Okl., Chas. Gibbs, of San Angelo, and I. S. Handy and A. D. Dyess, both of Houston, for appellants.

James V. Allred, Atty. Gen., and Ralph W. Yarborough, Asst. Atty. Gen., Geo. T. Wilson, Sp. Counsel, and J. P. Hill, both of San Angelo, John A. Braly, of Fort Worth, A. M. Gee and R. C. Gwilliam, both of Tulsa, Okl., Hiner & Pannill, of Fort Worth, Smith &amp Neill, of San Angelo, Burney Braly and G. R. Pate, both of Ft. Worth, and G. B. Smedley and Edwin H. Yeiser, both of Austin, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

This is a certified question from the honorable Court of Civil Appeals for the Third District, submitting the following questions: "Is the holding in the tentative draft of opinion hereto annexed, to the effect that the answer of the Supreme Court to the first question certified precludes consideration of the issues above stated under which an affirmance of the judgment of the trial court is now urged, correct?"

In describing the "tentative draft of opinion," the certificate states: "We have prepared and attach hereto as Exhibit `A' a tentative opinion in the case, drafted upon the hypothesis that the answer of the Supreme Court to the first question certified precludes consideration of the several grounds above enumerated, urged in behalf of those now seeking an affirmance of the trial court's judgment, and required reversal of the trial court's judgment. In presenting the question in this form it is not to be understood that the holdings expressed in this tentative opinion represent conclusions which this court has reached. This form was used because it was thought that the question we are now certifying could be more clearly and accurately presented in this manner."

We have reached the conclusion that this certificate must be dismissed, because:

First. It presents the entire case and comes within "the oft-declared rule against certifying a whole case to the Supreme Court," and does not comply with article 1851, R. S. 1925, "requiring the Courts of Civil...