Martinez v. Euler, 1001
| Decision Date | 19 June 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 1001,1001 |
| Citation | 524 S.W.2d 814 |
| Parties | Reynaldo Antonio MARTINEZ et al., Appellants, v. Lile EULER, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Don L. Easton, McAllen, for appellants.
E. G. Henrichson, Henrichson & Henrichson, Edinburg, for appellee.
This cause is before the Court on two motions: Appellants' Amended Motion to Extend Time for Filing Record on the grounds that the court reporter, due to her workload, has been unable to prepare the statement of facts; and Appellee's Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Properly File Appeal Bond.
From the facts contained in both motions it appears that the trial court announced its judgment in this cause from the bench on or about January 20, 1975. After that day, appellee states, she submitted to the appellants on two different occasions, copies of a proposed final judgment, to all of which appellants voiced objections. Appellee states that the third and final proposed judgment, which was submitted to the Court and signed on March 17, 1975 as a final judgment, met the earlier objections of appellants. Appellants were furnished a copy of the final judgment which contained a notice of appeal. There was no motion for new trial filed.
The appeal bond was not filed by appellants until May 7, 1975. Appellants seek to excuse their failure to file the bond within 30 days after the rendition of the final judgment (as required by Rule 356, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure) by showing that the District Clerk of Hidalgo County, Texas (wherein this cause originated), did not, pursuant to Rule 306d, T.R.C.P., notify the appellants that a final judgment was entered in the cause until April 22, 1975. Appellants state that the testimony of both the district clerk and a deputy district clerk was that the judgment in the case was misfiled and not recovered until April 22, 1975. Appellants then filed their appeal bond on May 7, 1975, and requested the district clerk to prepare the transcript and the court reporter to prepare the statement of facts.
Rule 363, T.R.C.P., provides that an appeal is perfected when the notice of appeal is given And the bond or affidavit in lieu thereof has been filed. Rule 356, T.R.C.P., provides that the appeal bond 'shall' be filed with the clerk within 30 days after rendition of judgment or order overruling motion for new trial. The time limits imposed by Rule 356 are mandatory and jurisdictional. Failure to comply with these rules results in the appeal not being perfected. This Court does not acquire any jurisdiction over this case except to dismiss the appeal. Glidden Company v. Aetna Casualty and Surety Company, 155 Tex....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bell Helicopter Co. v. Bradshaw
...appeal of Bell for want of jurisdiction. Texas Employers' Insurance Association v. Martin, 162 Tex. 376, 347 S.W.2d 916 (1961); Martinez v. Euler, 524 S.W.2d 814 (Tex.Civ.App. Corpus Christi 1975, no The relevant procedural history of this case began May 15, 1978, when the trial court rende......
-
State Dept. of Highways and Public Transp. v. Douglas
...writ ref'd); Grivel v. Atlantic Mutual Insurance Co., 513 S.W.2d 297 (Tex.Civ.App. Corpus Christi 1974, writ ref'd n. r. e.); Martinez v. Euler, 524 S.W.2d 814 (Tex.Civ.App. Corpus Christi 1975, no Moreover, even if it could be construed that appellant's oral notice of appeal and its letter......
-
Gruber v. Texas State Bd. of Pharmacy, 16769
...this Court to reasons why the appeal bond was untimely filed. As the Corpus Christi Court emphasized in a per curiam opinion in Martinez v. Euler, 524 S.W.2d 814 (Tex.Civ.App. Corpus Christi 1975, no writ), while discussing Tex.R.Civ.P. 356 prior to the 1981 Rule 356, T.R.C.P., provides tha......
-
Manrique v. Texas Emp. Ins. Ass'n, 1797
...v. Dallas County Child Welfare Unit, Texas Department of Human Resources, 593 S.W.2d 420 (Tex.Civ.App. Dallas 1980, no writ); Martinez v. Euler, 524 S.W.2d 814 (Tex.Civ.App. Corpus Christi 1975, no While we are well aware of the due process arguments presented by appellant, we are of the op......