Gammel Statesman Pub. Co. v. Ben C. Jones & Co.
| Decision Date | 11 December 1918 |
| Docket Number | (No. 9-2572.) |
| Citation | 206 S.W. 931 |
| Parties | GAMMEL STATESMAN PUB. CO. et al. v. BEN C. JONES & CO. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Action by Ben C. Jones & Co. against the Gammel Statesman Publishing Company and others. From judgment for defendants, plaintiff appealed to the Court of Civil Appeals, which affirmed (141 S. W. 1048), and thereafter, on plaintiff's supplemental motion for rehearing of motion to vacate judgment, set aside its former judgment of affirmance and all other orders and decisions subsequent, and reversed and remanded the cause for new trial (156 S. W. 317), and defendants bring error. Motion to dismiss application for writ of error overruled, and order and judgment entered by Court of Civil Appeals setting aside and vacating its former judgment, and reversing and remanding for new trial, declared void and of no effect, on recommendation of the Commission of Appeals.
Gregory & Botts and Hart & Patterson, all of Austin, for plaintiffs in error.
R. H. Cousins and V. A. Fenner, both of Austin, for defendant in error.
The judgment of the trial court in this cause was affirmed by the Court of Civil Appeals for the Third Supreme Judicial District on May 24, 1911. 141 S. W. 1048. On June 6, 1911, defendants in error filed their original motion for rehearing in said cause. The court adjourned without acting on this motion, but overruled same at its next term on December 6, 1911. On January 4, 1912, defendants in error filed their application for writ of error to the Supreme Court, and the same was denied on February 7, 1912. On February 24, 1912, defendants in error filed in the Supreme Court their motion for rehearing on the refusal of their application for writ of error, and said motion was overruled on February 28, 1912. On March 25, 1912, defendants in error filed in the Supreme Court an application for mandamus against the judges of the Court of Civil Appeals for the Third Supreme Judicial District to require the latter court to grant a rehearing and reopen the case, and this was refused on April 3, 1912. Defendants in error next filed in the Supreme Court an application for mandamus against the judge of the trial court, and same was refused. On May 28, 1912, defendants in error filed in the Court of Civil Appeals a motion styled "motion to vacate judgment." This motion was refused by the court on October 12, 1912. On October 23, 1912, defendants in error filed in the Court of Civil Appeals what they termed "motion for rehearing of motion to vacate judgment," and this was overruled on January 8, 1913. On January 15, 1913, defendants in error filed in the Court of Civil Appeals a motion designated "supplemental motion for rehearing of motion to vacate judgment." The Court of Civil Appeals on February 19, 1913, granted this motion, and entered judgment, setting aside its former judgment rendered May 24, 1911, affirming the judgment of the district court and all other orders and decisions made by it subsequent to that time, and reversed and remanded the cause for a new trial.
Plaintiffs in error contend that the Court of Civil Appeals was without authority to grant the motion, because same was filled and acted upon at a subsequent term of the court to that at which its original judgment was rendered and after the Supreme Court had denied a writ of error in said cause. This is the only question presented for review.
We conclude, after a careful examination of the motion in connection with the record, that while not so designated, it is in substance a motion for rehearing within the meaning of that term as used in articles 1633 and 1641, Revised Statutes 1911. The Court of Civil Appeals so held in granting the motion. 156 S. W. 317.
The motion was not filed within the time allowed for the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Humble Exploration Co. v. Browning
...court has no power to change its judgment after the supreme court has approved it by denying a writ of error. Gammel Statesman Publishing Co. v. Ben C. Jones & Co., 206 S.W. 931 (Tex.Comm.'n App.1918, holding approved). Therefore we find no support for the view that between the overruling o......
-
Harris v. Chambers. Dist. Judge
...by writ, of mandamus from this court." ¶7 See, also, State ex rel. v. Pitchford, 68 Okla. 81, 171 P. 448; Gammel Statesman Publishing Co. v. Jones & Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 206 S.W. 931; Cline v. Cline (Ky.) 201 Ky. 318, 256 S.W. 386; Brictson Mfg. Co. v. Woodrough, District Judge, 284 F. 484;......
-
Harris v. Chambers
... ... also, State ex rel. v. Pitchford, 68 Okl. 81, 171 P ... 448; Gammel Statesman Publishing Co. v. Jones & Co. (Tex ... Com. App.) 206 S.W ... ...
-
Take v. Woodruff, Case Number: 22203
...by writ of mandamus from this court.' "See, also, State ex rel. v. Pitchford, 68 Okla. 81, 171 P. 448; Gammel Statesman Publishing Co. v. Jones & Co. (Tex. Com. App.) 206 S.W. 931; Cline v. Cline (Ky.) 256 S.W. 386; Brictson Mfg. Co. v. Woodrough, District Judge, 284 F. 484; Union Trust Co.......