Haley v. Davidson

• Decision Date: 01 January 1878
• Citation: 48 Tex. 615
• Parties: T. J. HALEY ET AL. v. MARY DAVIDSON ET AL.
• Court: Texas Supreme Court

48 Tex. 615

T. J. HALEY ET AL.

v.MARY DAVIDSON ET AL.

Supreme Court of Texas.

1878.

MOTION to advance under the new rules. Appeal from Galveston.

George P. Finlay & Bro., for motion.

MOORE, ASSOCIATE JUSTICE.

Appellees' brief accompanying the motion to advance this case does not conform to the requirements of the rules authorizing the motion. The application to advance the case must therefore be refused.

The difficulty under which counsel seem to labor, in properly apprehending the rules recently adopted and promulgated by the court, and in conforming to their requirements in the preparation of briefs under them, induces me to make the following observations, with the hope that they may, in some degree, tend to aid in the more ready and just apprehension of their scope and intent, thereby rendering a conformity to their requirements more easy in practice.

As is obvious to every attorney of this court, it is utterly beyond the ability of the court, under the present system and rules of practice, to keep pace with the accruing business, much less bring up the arrearages of former terms. The delay in the decision of cases pending in the court for the past three or four years is, even now, almost tantamount to a denial of justice; and unless some remedy can be found, and the business dispatched more rapidly, it will soon be a debatable question whether it would not be better for the court to be entirely abolished. An increase in the number of the judges would, probably, to some extent, facilitate the dispatch of the business, but evidently this would prove a mere palliation, and not a cure, for the evil. A limitation upon the right of appeal seems not to accord with popular sentiment. The Legislature does not appear inclined to make any radical change in the present mode of bringing cases to this court. The Convention, however, conferred upon this court authority to make rules and regulations for the government of this and the other courts of the State, to regulate proceedings, and expedite the dispatch of business.

In the exercise of this authority, the court has, speaking of the matter now in hand, endeavored to form rules regulating the presentation of cases which, while they would deprive litigants of no right conferred upon them by the statutes, or conflict in any way with our appellate system, it is hoped and believed will enable us to dispatch the business of the court. This, however, I frankly say to the bar, can, in my opinion, only be accomplished by requiring of them a large amount of labor which has heretofore been performed, often imperfectly, by the court.

The records, as they are now brought to this court, present a transcript, in the main, of all the proceedings had in the case in the District Court, from the filing of the original petition to the perfection of the appeal or writ of error. The utter impossibility of the court so thoroughly mastering these records, even when few in number and small in bulk with what they are now, so as to perceive and properly determine all the questions which might be presented therein, without their being pointed out or indicated by counsel, was obvious at an early day. Hence, appellants or plaintiffs in error were required to file assignments of error; and all errors not assigned, unless going to the foundation of the action, were declared to be waived or abandoned. Experience, however, has proved that this provision is of much less practical benefit, in the dispatch of business, than it was evidently...