Glenn v. McCarty, 7275.
Decision Date | 08 December 1937 |
Docket Number | No. 7275.,7275. |
Parties | GLENN et al. v. McCARTY et al. |
Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Bean & Bean, of Lubbock, and Jno. B. Daniel, of Temple, for plaintiffs in error.
Vickers & Campbell, of Lubbock, for defendants in error.
This cause was reversed and remanded by the Court of Civil Appeals. 103 S.W.2d 1098. The application for writ of error was dismissed on the ground that it did not show that a motion for rehearing had been filed in the Court of Civil Appeals. (Tex. Sup.) 107 S.W.2d 363, 364. A motion for leave to amend the application has been filed.
The frequency with which this court is called upon to dismiss applications for writs of error, on the ground that such applications fail to show that a motion for rehearing has been filed in the Court of Civil Appeals raising the points on which the writs are asked, impels this court again to call attention to the rules relating to this subject.
From time to time the Legislature has passed new laws and modified old laws, and this court has adopted new rules and modified prior rules, supplementing the statutes, relating to appellate procedure, in order to meet new conditions. The statutes and the rules have long specified certain essential requirements regarding the filing of an application for writ of error, as follows: (1) That it be addressed to the Supreme Court; (2) that it state the nature of the case and the grounds upon which the writ of error is based; (3) that it show that the Supreme Court has jurisdiction of the case; (4) that it show that the applicant has filed a motion for rehearing in the Court of Civil Appeals; and (5) that the application must be filed with the clerk of the Court of Civil Appeals within 30 days from the overruling of the motion for rehearing.
To expedite the disposition of cases appealed to the Supreme Court, it is necessary that counsel comply with certain essential rules of procedure in applying for writs of error. Such rules have long been in force. All questions sought to be reviewed must be embraced in the application for writ of error, or they will be considered as waived. This court, as early as 1892, in the case of Southern Pacific Co. v. Haas, 85 Tex. 401, 20 S.W. 586, speaking through Chief Justice Stayton, in discussing rules relating to applications for writs of error, held that, because no motion for rehearing, presenting the questions on which error was asserted, was filed in the Court of Civil Appeals, the application for writ of error was dismissed; and, in discussing the reasons for the rule, said:
The foregoing rule was also reiterated in the case of Sams v. Creager, 85 Tex. 497, 22 S.W. 399.
In 1895 the rules relating to procedure in the Supreme Court were amended. 87 Tex. xxxvii. Rule 1, which applied to the essential matters to be embraced in the application for writ of error, among other things, contained the following provision: "A motion for a rehearing must be made in the Court of Civil Appeals and overruled before applying for the writ of error."
The volume of business coming to this court has increased materially since the foregoing rule was adopted. When compared with former statutes, it will be seen that the Legislature has lessened the number of cases on which judgments of the Courts of Civil Appeals shall be conclusive. See article 1821, Revised Civil Statutes, as amended by Acts 1929, c. 33, § 1 (Vernon's Ann.Civ.St. art. 1821). The Legislature has also increased the number of cases over which the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction. See article 1728, Revised Civil Statutes, as amended by Acts 1927, c. 144, § 1 (Vernon's Ann.Civ.St. art. 1728). Effective January 1, 1931, certain changes in the rules for the Supreme Court were adopted. 121 Tex. 745. We set out below the pertinent parts of rule 1 applicable to the question here presented:
Then follows the rule governing the manner in which an application must be prepared. (See subdivisions (a) and (b) of the rule.) The following requirements are also embodied in the rule:
It is settled that, where a statute prescribes a rule of procedure, such rule so prescribed in the statute will control. And it is contended that the enactment of H. B. No. 1015 in 1931 (chapter 149 [Vernon's Ann.Civ.St. arts. 1740, 1741]), articles 1740 and 1741 of the Revised Civil Statutes, abrogated the rule requiring motions for rehearing to be filed in the Court of Civil Appeals. If the act just mentioned does override such rule, then such motion for rehearing need not be filed in the Court of Civil Appeals. This court has repeatedly recognized that the Legislature has the power, under the Constitution, to enact rules relating to the right of appeal, and modify them at will. But if the Legislature has provided no mode of procedure for appealing cases, the Supreme Court has authority to adopt such rules for that purpose. Stillman v. Hirsch, 128 Tex. ___, 99 S.W.2d 270. The applicable part of ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
East Texas Motor Freight Lines v. Loftis
...application by its failure to do so. Moore v. Dilworth, 142 Tex. 538, 179 S.W.2d 940; Glenn v. McCarty, 130 Tex. 641, 107 S.W.2d 363, 110 S.W.2d 1148 (on rehearing). However, the purpose of our notations in granting applications for writs of error is to direct the attention of counsel to po......
-
Robinson v. Commercial Standard Ins. Co.
...Colored Knights of Pythias v. Adams, 130 Tex. 360, 107 S.W.2d 355, 110 S.W.2d 1152; Glenn v. McCarty, 130 Tex. 641, 107 S.W. 2d 363, 110 S.W.2d 1148; Casualty Reciprocal Exchange v. Dawson, 130 Tex. 362, 107 S.W.2d 994; Thompson v. Enfield, 130 Tex. 363, 108 S.W.2d 1110; Citizens Savings Ba......
-
Petroleum Casualty Co. v. Kincaid
...S.W. 2d 1153; Citizens Savings Bank, etc. v. Spencer, 130 Tex. 384, 110 S.W.2d 1151; Glenn v. McCarty, 130 Tex. 641, 107 S.W. 2d 363, 110 S.W.2d 1148; Grand Lodge v. Adams, 130 Tex. 360, 107 S.W.2d 355, 110 S.W.2d 1152; Thompson v. Enfield, 130 Tex. 363, 108 S.W.2d 1110; Leonard Bros. v. Ne......
-
Moore v. Dilworth
...will not be considered by the Supreme Court. Rule 458, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure; Glenn v. McCarty, 130 Tex. 641, 107 S.W.2d 363, 110 S.W.2d 1148; Stephenson v. MillerLink Lumber Co., Tex.Com.App., 277 S.W. 1039; Grayce Oil Co. v. Peterson, 128 Tex. 558, 98 S.W.2d 781. Also, a Point of......