Louisiana-Rio Grande Canal Co. v. Quinn
| Decision Date | 22 October 1913 |
| Citation | 160 S.W. 151 |
| Parties | LOUISIANA-RIO GRANDE CANAL CO. v. QUINN. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Action between the Louisiana-Rio Grande Canal Company and R. E. Quinn. There was a judgment for Quinn, and the Canal Company brings error. On motion to strike the statement of facts and bills of exception. Motion granted as to bills of exception, and overruled as to statement of facts.
F. W. Kibbe and L. J. Polk, Jr., both of Brownsville, for plaintiff in error.
The judgment against plaintiff in error was rendered on February 16, 1912, and notice of appeal was given. A supersedeas bond was given by plaintiff in error, which purports to have been filed on March 6, 1912. Nothing further was then done in connection with the matter until January 18, 1913, when plaintiff in error presented bills of exception and a statement of facts, which the county judge ordered the clerk to file as of date April 1, 1912. The statement of facts purports to have been approved April 2, 1912, although such date is not the true one. There is no pretense that the bills of exception and statement of facts were in existence at the time that the trial judge certifies he approved them, nor when the clerk certifies they were filed. In other words, the times of approval and filing are false dates, and the act of giving such false certificate should be condemned. Of course, the false dates add nothing to the sufficiency of the bills of exception and statement of facts, and they will be considered as though filed on January 18, 1913, 11 months after the term of court adjourned at which the cause was tried.
Under the terms of Acts 32d Leg. c. 119, § 7, "any statement of facts filed before the time for filing the transcript in the appellate court expires shall be considered as having been filed within time allowed by law," and we think that applies to a writ of error as well as to an appeal, and that a statement of facts filed at any time within 12 months after the final judgment was rendered would be in time for a writ of error. The provision quoted is broad enough to cover any statement of facts in cases of appeal or writs of error, and the utter folly of providing in the same act for extensions of time to file statements of facts, and then setting aside the whole thing by the provision in question is apparent. That part of the act that is quoted does not, however, have any reference to bills...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Byrne v. Texas Lumber & Loan Co.
...long after the time in which to file it allowed them by the court's order had expired, and for that reason cannot be considered. Canal v. Quinn, 160 S. W. 151; Criswell v. Robbins, 152 S. W. 210; Rishworth v. Moss, 191 S. W. 843. But had it been filed in time to entitle it to consideration,......
-
Kirby Lumber Co. v. Smith
...of facts filed any time within 12 months after the final judgment was rendered would be in time under a writ of error. Louisiana, etc., Canal Co. v. Quinn, 160 S. W. 151; McLane v. Haydon, 178 S. W. The motion to dismiss the appeal will therefore be overruled. On the Merits. This suit was i......
-
Reef v. Hamblen
...Blackman v. Harry (Tex. Civ. App.) 45 S. W. 610; Harrington v. Blankenship (Tex. Civ. App.) 52 S. W. 585; Louisiana-Rio Grande Canal Co. v. Quinn (Tex. Civ. App.) 160 S. W. 151; Western Union Telegraph Co. v. White (Tex. Civ. App.) 143 S. W. 958; 3 Tex. Jur. § 17, p. 56, § 694, p. We theref......
-
Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Duff
...of the court with reference to such request for review here, will not be considered. Criswell v. Robbins, 152 S. W. 210; Canal Co. v. Quinn, 160 S. W. 151; Tyler v. Sowders, 172 S. W. 205; Loeb v. Railway Co., 186 S. W. 378; Pearce v. Knights and Ladies of Honor, 190 S. W. The court instruc......