Long v. Martin
| Decision Date | 31 January 1923 |
| Docket Number | (No. 3715.)<SMALL><SUP>*</SUP></SMALL> |
| Citation | 247 S.W. 827 |
| Parties | LONG et al. v. MARTIN. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Bullington, Boone, Humphrey & Hoffman, of Wichita Falls, and W. L. Eason, of Waco, for plaintiffs in error.
Fitzgerald & Hatchett, of Wichita Falls, for defendant in error.
The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed the judgment of the trial court in this case on the 25th day of May, 1921. and overruled a motion for rehearing on October 12, 1921. On the thirty-first day thereafter, on November 12, 1921, the petition for writ of error was filed by the clerk of the Court of Civil Appeals.
Plaintiffs in error seek to sustain this court's jurisdiction to review the judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals, on a petition filed after the lapse of more than 30 days from the overruling of the motion for rehearing, on the following grounds:
First. That the order overruling the motion for rehearing was not actually entered in the minutes of the Court of Civil Appeals until less than 30 days before November 12, 1921.
Second. That the Governor of Texas, having designated November 11, 1921, as a holiday by a proclamation issued November 8, 1921, it ought to be excluded in computing the 30 days allowed for the filing of the petition for writ of error.
Third. That plaintiffs in error and their counsel used due diligence to file the petition for writ of error within 30 days from the date on which the motion for rehearing was overruled.
Notwithstanding the facts disclose that the order overruling the motion for rehearing was not entered until two or three days after its rendition, and that the Governor designated as a holiday the last day allowed for the filing of the petition for writ of error, and that counsel for plaintiffs in error used the utmost diligence to file the petition in time, yet we have no jurisdiction to review the judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals.
As repeatedly announced, a judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals is not subject to review through the exercise of the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, whenever 30 days elapse subsequent to the rendition of such judgment without the actual lodgment of a petition for writ of error with the clerk of the Court of Civil Appeals. Schleicher v. Runge, 90 Tex. 456, 39 S. W. 279; Vinson v. Carter & Bro., 106 Tex. 273, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Perkins
...error with the clerk of the Court of Civil Appeals `within thirty days from the overruling of the motion for rehearing.' Long v. Martin, 112 Tex. 365, 247 S. W. 827. When plaintiffs in error allowed 30 days to elapse from, not only the date of overruling their motion for rehearing, but from......
-
William B. Roberts, Inc. v. McDrilling Co., Inc.
...cannot be rendered invalid by a representation made after the transaction was originally entered into by the parties. Long v. Martin, 112 Tex. 365, 247 S.W. 827 (1923); Steine v. Hillcrest State Bank of University Park, 423 S.W.2d 443 (Tex.Civ.App. Dallas 1967, no writ); Burchill v. Hermsme......
- Borchers v. Fly
-
Standard Fire Ins. Co. v. LaCoke, 8600
...discretion in aid of the appeal, are not material. See Labansat v. Cameron County, Tex.Civ.App., 143 S.W.2d 94 (no writ); Long v. Martin, 112 Tex. 365, 247 S.W. 827. The case last cited holds that delay in filing the petition for writ of error is fatal to the jurisdiction of this Court alth......