Dunn v. Allen
| Decision Date | 27 September 1933 |
| Docket Number | No. 10863.,10863. |
| Citation | 63 S.W.2d 857 |
| Parties | DUNN et al. v. ALLEN et al. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Muse & Muse, of Dallas, for respondents.
Mrs. Emma Louisa Dunn and husband, C. V. Dunn, instituted this proceeding against Hon. R. B. Allen, Sr., judge of the 116th district court of Dallas county, and J. R. McAtee, official court reporter, for a writ of mandamus, to require said judge to order said court reporter, and that said reporter be required to prepare, certify, and file statement of facts and transcript in the case of Stidham & Thrasher v. Indian State Oil Company of Texas et al., No. 96346—F, tried in a district court of Dallas county, and in which the said R. B. Allen, Sr., was the judge and J. R. McAtee was the shorthand reporter.
The relevant facts disclosed by the record are that Stidham & Thrasher instituted suit in said district court against the Indian State Oil Company of Texas, and secured the appointment of a receiver to take charge of oil properties situated in the East Texas oil field, alleged to belong to said company, and under such appointment the receiver proceeded to administer the affairs of said company. In due course, relators, Dunns, were made parties defendant, and filed their pleas of intervention in said cause, claiming an interest in the properties then in the hands of the receiver. The receiver denied the justness of said relators' claims, and this disputed issue is now pending before a master in chancery for an ultimate decision. The interveners filed in said court an original application, in the nature of an independent suit, to enjoin the receiver from paying out any funds held by him, pending the determination of the issue by the master, and, in the alternative, asked for an order directing the receiver to set aside and create, from moneys on hand and that to accumulate from oil produced and sold, a fund, to pay the interveners' claim thereto, which claim is the basis of the controversy now pending before the master in chancery. The petition is full and complete, raising the issue as to the right of interveners to the writ of injunction; the trial court had jurisdiction of the persons and res, and, on said hearing, evidence on such issue, pro and con, was introduced. The court denied the injunction, refused to stay the proceedings to expend funds, and to order the receiver to impound money to await the action of the trial court and master in chancery. The Dunns gave notice of appeal from the order of the court, denying the injunction, and, in due time, filed with the clerk of said court affidavits, in statutory form, of their inability to pay the costs of appeal, or to give security therefor, which affidavits were not contested. Thus, the filing of the affidavits had the effect of perfecting the appeal to this court; thereupon, said interveners requested respondent McAtee to prepare a transcript of the testimony, as provided by law, and the respondent Allen to order the preparation of such transcript for the appeal. The requests were denied; thus, this proceeding.
Article 2249, R. S., provides...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Johnson, In re
...Art. III, § 44 of the Texas Constitution. See Butcher v. Tinkle, 183 S.W.2d 227 (Tex.Civ.App. Beaumont 1944, writ ref'd w.o.m.); Dunn v. Allen, 63 S.W.2d 857 (Tex.Civ.App. Dallas 1933, no writ). As an official court reporter, Johnson's base salary was set by the legislature in 1971 at $9,60......
-
Coleman v. Long, 16866
...Tex.Civ.App., 99 S.W.2d 686 (no writ hist.); Turner v. Atlanta Nat'l Bank, Tex.Civ.App., 83 S.W.2d 454 (no writ hist.); Dunn v. Allen, Tex.Civ.App., 63 S.W.2d 857 (no writ hist.). In Barrera v. McCormick, Tex.Civ.App., 63 S.W.2d 1084 it is held that when an affidavit of inability to pay cos......
-
City of Ingleside v. Johnson, 1123
...of the District Courts of this State, is an officer of the State and as such, their duties are set forth under Article 2324. See Dunn v. Allen, 63 S.W.2d 857 (Tex.Civ.App.--Dallas 1933, no writ); Butcher v. Tinkle, 183 S.W.2d 227 (Tex.Civ.App.--Beaumont 1944, writ ref'd w.o.m.). The Court R......