Puckett v. Reed

Decision Date01 January 1872
Citation37 Tex. 308
PartiesL. D. PUCKETT v. A. H. REED.
CourtTexas Supreme Court

1. Judgment by District Court, November 18th, 1869. On the next day a motion for a new trial was made, and overruled. On the 26th of the same month another motion for a new trial was made and sustained, and the cause continued. In March, 1871, the court, of its own motion, set aside the order of the 26th of November, 1869, granting a new trial, and dismissed the cause. Held to be error. The District Court can reconsider or reverse its rulings during the term at which they were made, but not thereafter.

2. The District Court may entertain and allow a new trial after having proviously, but at the same term, disallowed such a motion.

3. The discretion of District Courts in granting new trials will not be revised by this court.

APPEAL from Karnes. Tried below before the Hon. Daniel D. Claiborne.

The opinion of the court sufficiently states the facts of the case.

No brief for either party has reached the hands of the reporter.


This cause was tried in the District Court, November 18th, 1869, and a judgment rendered. On the 19th of the same month, a motion for a new trial was made and overruled; and on the 26th, another motion was made and sustained, and a new trial granted; and the cause was continued for several terms of the court, and both plaintiff and defendant took orders to amend their pleadings, and did so amend. But in March, 1871, it appears that the court, without any motion for that purpose, entered up an order and decree, declaring that the order of the court made on the 26th of November, 1869, granting a new trial, was without authority of law, and was null and void; and thereupon the court set said order aside and dismissed the cause from the docket. And from this last order this appeal is taken.

We think there is error in this judgment of the court which will require its reversal. It is believed this judgment was rendered upon the supposition that after overruling the first motion for a new trial, the court lost all jurisdiction or control over the matter, and could not therefore hear a new motion, or reconsider its former rulings during the same term. But we think this not in conformity with the rulings of this court.

In Wood v. Wheeler, 7 Texas, 16, this court said, “Until the expiration of the term, the court had competent authority to amend, reverse, or annul its judgments; as well upon material, as immaterial points; upon the merits, as...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 cases
  • Hall Oil Company v. Barquin
    • United States
    • Wyoming Supreme Court
    • June 2, 1925
    ... ... within four days after the judgment, the court was not ... concluded by its previous ruling. ( Puckett v. Reed, ... 37 Tex. 308; Bryorly v. Clark, 48 Tex. 345; ... White v. Perkins, 16 Ind. 358; Hughes v. M'Gee, ... 1 A.K. Marsh. 28.)" ... ...
  • Dittman v. Model Baking Co.
    • United States
    • Texas Supreme Court
    • April 15, 1925
    ...1 White & W. Civ. Cas. Ct. App. 319; El Paso, etc., Co. v. Kelley, 99 Tex. 90, 87 S. W. 660; Aldridge v. Mardorff, 32 Tex. 204; Puckett v. Reed, 37 Tex. 308; Winnsboro, etc., Co. v. Carson (Tex. Civ. App.) 185 S. W. 1003; Ishmel v. Potts (Tex. Civ. App.) 44 S. W. 615. Such a court has compl......
  • Handy v. Olney Oil & Refining Co., 12911.
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • December 16, 1933
    ...new trial and permitting the judgment to stand. A writ of error was denied in that case. To the same effect was the decision in Puckett v. Reed, 37 Tex. 308, which was cited in the opinion in that case. In Citizens' Nat. Bank of Waco v. Abeel (Tex. Civ. App.) 160 S. W. 609, it was held that......
  • Hume v. John B. Hood Camp Confederate Veterans
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • June 18, 1902
    ...the term, and to make such orders as may be necessary to reach that result (Templeton v. Gibbs [Tex. Civ. App.] 25 S. W. 736; Puckett v. Reed, 37 Tex. 308; Williams v. Huling, 43 Tex. 113; Linn v. Lecompte, 47 Tex. 440; Bryorly v. Clark, 48 Tex. 345; Blum v. Wettermark, 58 Tex. 125; Stuart ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT