Miller v. Stine
| Decision Date | 26 February 1936 |
| Docket Number | No. 1935-6520.,1935-6520. |
| Citation | 91 S.W.2d 315 |
| Parties | MILLER v. STINE, Judge. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
This is an original mandamus proceeding brought by Estell Miller, a feme sole, against Honorable Vincent Stine, judge of the district court of the Ninety-Seventh judicial district of Texas.The purpose of the suit is to compel the respondent to enter judgment in favor of relator in the case of Estell Miller v. R. L. McClure, tried in the district court of Montague county on April 13, 1933.
On careful inspection of the record we find that R. L. McClure, defendant in the cause mentioned, has not been a party to this proceeding, and has filed no answer herein.He being a necessary party, the order allowing filing of the petition was improvidently entered....
To continue reading
Request your trialUnlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology
Start Your 7-day Trial
6 cases
-
Dick v. Kazen
...the trial judge to render and enter a judgment on the jury's verdict. Douglas v. Parish, 124 Tex. 39, 72 S.W.2d 591; Miller v. Stine, 127 Tex. 22, 91 S.W.2d 315. Other parties to the main suit are necessary parties to a mandamus proceeding to compel the clerk of the trial court to issue exe......
-
Brazos River Conservation and R. Dist. v. Belcher
...Ry. & Terminal Co. v. Watkins, 126 Tex. 116, 86 S.W.2d 1081; Ford Rent Co., Inc., v. Hughes, 126 Tex. 255, 88 S.W.2d 85; Miller v. Stine, 127 Tex. 22, 91 S.W.2d 315. We therefore hold that this mandamus must be brought in the district court; and if satisfactory relief is not obtained there,......
-
Ridley v. McCallum
...invoke the rule declared in such cases as Dallas Railway & Terminal Co. v. Watkins, 126 Tex. 116, 86 S.W.2d 1081, and Miller v. Stine, 127 Tex. 22, 91 S.W.2d 315, to the effect that, in a case in which the Court of Civil Appeals has jurisdiction to issue the writ of mandamus applied for in ......
-
Dexter v. Crosslin
...35, 66 S.W.2d 655; Templeton v. Weatherly, Tex.Civ.App., 62 S.W.2d 286; O'Keefe v. Robison, 116 Tex. 398, 292 S.W. 854; Miller v. Stine, 127 Tex. 22, 91 S.W.2d 315. Under this rule, Vickery, who was interested in who his tenant might be, but who was not a party to the forcible entry and det......
Request a trial to view additional results