Millers Mut. Fire Ins. Co. of Texas v. Wilkirson, 6270.
| Decision Date | 31 December 1934 |
| Docket Number | No. 6270.,6270. |
| Citation | 77 S.W.2d 1035 |
| Parties | MILLERS MUT. FIRE INS. CO. OF TEXAS v. WILKIRSON et al. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
This cause was tried in the district court of Tarrant county, and judgment was rendered therein on November 18, 1930, in favor of defendants in error. On November 26, 1930, plaintiff in error filed its motion for new trial. The trial court, on the application of plaintiff in error, defendant there, entered on December 15, 1930, an order granting it an extension of 30 days from the date of the order within which to file its amended motion for new trial. On January 13, 1931, the court entered another order granting plaintiff in error further extension, that is, an additional time of 15 days from the date of the order, within which to file its amended motion, and this order provided that the time within which the motion might be heard was extended to January 29, 1931. Plaintiff in error filed its amended motion for new trial on January 23, 1931. Thereafter, on January 27, 1931, the court entered an order extending the time for the hearing of the amended motion to February 4, 1931. On the day last named an order was entered granting plaintiff in error leave to file a second amended motion for new trial, and such motion was on the same day filed, presented, and taken under advisement. This last motion was overruled by order entered February 18, 1931; plaintiff in error excepting and giving notice of appeal.
On March 19, 1931, plaintiff in error filed its appeal bond. The transcript was filed in the Court of Civil Appeals at Fort Worth on June 1, 1931, and upon order of the Supreme Court the cause was transferred to the Court of Civil Appeals at Texarkana; the transcript being filed in that court on July 3, 1931. Within 30 days from the date of the filing of the transcript in the Court of Civil Appeals in Fort Worth, defendants in error filed their motion to dismiss the appeal on the following grounds: That both amended motions for new...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fitzgerald v. Lane
...Work, 124 Tex. 281, 77 S.W.2d 1036; Dallas Storage & Warehouse Co. v. Taylor, 124 Tex. 315, 77 S.W.2d 1031; Millers Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Wilkirson, 124 Tex. 312, 77 S.W. 2d 1035; Peurifoy v. Wiebusch, 125 Tex. 207, 82 S.W.2d 624; Highland Farms Corp. v. Fidelity Trust Co., 125 Tex. 474, 82......
-
H. M. Cohen Lumber & Building Co. v. Panos, 3860.
...83 S.W.2d 803; National Consolidated Bond Corporation v. Burks, Tex.Civ.App., 114 S.W.2d 280; Millers Mut. Fire Ins. Co. of Texas v. Wilkirson, 124 Tex. 312, 77 S.W.2d 1035. We overrule appellant's contention that the jury was guilty of misconduct in considering the calculations of two of t......
-
Texas Livestock Marketing Ass'n v. Rogers
...Work, 124 Tex. 281, 77 S.W.2d 1036; Dallas Storage & Warehouse Co. v. Taylor, 124 Tex. 315, 77 S.W.2d 1031; Millers Mutual Fire Ins. Co. v. Wilkirson, 124 Tex. 312, 77 S.W.2d 1035. It is plain from the reading of Rule 330 (j), that an appellant has ten days after judgment within which to fi......
-
Heldt Brothers Trucks v. Alvarez
...of the Court at any time before it is acted on within twenty (20) days after it is filed.' See: Millers Mutual Fire Ins. Co. of Texas v. Wilkirson, 124 Tex. 312, 77 S.W.2d 1035 (1934). See also: Texas & New Orleans Railroad Co. v. Arnold, 388 S.W.2d 181 (Tex.1965); Chantre v. National Marit......