Olcott v. Reese
| Decision Date | 11 February 1927 |
| Docket Number | (No. 1473.) |
| Citation | 291 S.W. 261 |
| Parties | OLCOTT v. REESE et al. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Action by Miss Theodora Olcott against Ben Reese and Nora Reese. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff brings error. Affirmed.
D. C. Bland, of Orange, for plaintiff in error.
O. R. Sholars, of Orange, for defendants in error.
This suit was instituted by plaintiff in error against defendants in error to recover the title and possession of a certain house in the city of Orange, Tex., alleged not to be a part of the realty. She was granted a temporary injunction, restraining defendants in error from interfering with her in her efforts to move the house. Defendants in error answered, claiming ownership of the house, and also specially pleading the value. The prayer was for general relief.
The case was not tried before the regular judge, but the parties agreed upon Judge Ed. S. McCarver, who, having duly qualified, tried the case. When the case was called for trial, plaintiff in error, by her counsel, announced that she would not prosecute the case any further, and declined to enter an appearance. Defendants in error announced ready for trial. Thereupon the court heard proof of the issues made by defendants in error in their answer, and rendered judgment for defendants in error for the title and possession of the house. While plaintiff in error made no appearance in the case, her attorney, Judge D. C. Bland, was present during the trial, and at the conclusion of the evidence made an argument to the court on the law of the case, which he said was made in his capacity as amicus curiæ, and not as attorney for plaintiff in error. The judgment having been rendered against his client, this appeal was prosecuted by writ of error.
His propositions are, first, that having made no appearance in the case, and as plaintiff in error had not been served with notice of defendants in error's answer praying for affirmative relief, the trial court was without jurisdiction to enter any order other than a dismissal of the plaintiff's suit and either a dismissal of the defendants' cross-action or a continuance thereof for service. This proposition is without merit. By agreeing upon Judge McCarver to try the case, plaintiff in error made a full appearance in the case for all purposes, but if this had not been done, the appearance of her attorney in ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Booth v. State, 46456
...1970). The office of amicus curiae is to aid the court and it cannot be subverted to the use of a litigant in the case. Olcott v. Reese, 291 S.W. 261 (Tex.Civ.App., Beaumont, 1927, no writ). Having been employed by appellant during the trial, counsel may not assume the office of amicus curi......
-
Burger v. Burger
...S.W.2d 897; Walker County Lbr. Co. v. Edmonds, Tex.Civ.App., 298 S.W. 610; Jackson v. Birk, Tex.Civ. App., 84 S.W.2d 332; Olcott v. Reese, Tex.Civ.App., 291 S.W. 261, and The State of Texas v. Jefferson Iron Co., 60 Tex. 312; Amer.Jur., Vol. 2, p. 679, sec. It is said that a special appeara......
-
Thomas v. Driver
...recited upon the face of the record herein bring this proposition of amicus curiæ within the rule announced by this court in Olcott v. Reese, 291 S. W. 261; Walker County Lumber Co. v. Edmonds, 298 S. W. 610; by the Fort Worth Court of Civil Appeals in Fort Worth & D. C. Ry. Co. v. 41 S.W.(......
-
Walker County Lumber Co. v. Edmonds
...office is to aid the court and for its personal benefit, and cannot be subverted to the use of a litigant in the case. Olcott v. Reese (Tex. Civ. App.) 291 S. W. 261. The judgment of dismissal is reversed, and the cause remanded to the trial court, with instructions to reinstate this case u......