Ragsdale v. Ward

• Decision Date: 10 June 1943
• Docket Number: No. 4324.,4324.
• Citation: 173 S.W.2d 765
• Parties: RAGSDALE v. WARD, Judge, et al.
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

Page 765

173 S.W.2d 765

RAGSDALE v. WARD, Judge, et al.

No. 4324.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. El Paso.

June 10, 1943.

Original mandamus proceeding by J. E. Ragsdale by R. O. Barr, as guardian, against M. V. Ward and others to compel named respondent, as judge of the County Court at Law, El Paso County, to reinstate an appeal by relator from a justice court in a forceful entry and detainer proceeding against Mrs. Leland D. Bartlett and others.

Writ denied.

A. L. Carlton, of El Paso, for petitioner.

Ernest Guinn, of El Paso, for appellee Bartlett.

C. M. Wilchar and Tom Lea, both of El Paso, for amicus curiae.

SUTTON, Justice.

This is an original mandamus proceeding.

The relator, R. O. Barr, as guardian for J. E. Ragsdale, seeks a writ of mandamus against M. V. Ward, as Judge of the County Court at Law of El Paso County, to compel the reinstatement of an appeal by relator from the Justice Court.

The relator filed suit in the Justice Court of El Paso County in a forcible entry and detainer proceeding against Mrs. Leland D. Bartlett et al. to recover the possession of certain rent property and joined therewith a suit for rents claimed to be due in the sum of $62.50. The suit was tried in the Justice Court to a jury. The verdict was, the defendants in such suit were not guilty of forcible entry and detainer, but for the sum of $30 for rents. From that judgment the plaintiff, who is relator here, undertook to appeal to the County Court at Law, aforesaid, without posting an appeal bond. The County Court dismissed the appeal and the purpose of this proceeding is to secure a reinstatement of that appeal.

Forcible entry and detainer is a special proceeding, and as such is governed by the provisions of law specifically applicable thereto. 19 Tex.Jur. p. 764, par. 6, and authorities. See, also, Vinson v. McPherson, Tex.Civ.App., 54 S.W.2d 829, and Ringgold v. Graham, Tex.Com.App., 13 S. W.2d 355. This being a statutory proceeding, it is essential the special provisions be looked to and followed, and as provided in Art. 3987, now Rule 749, T.R.C.P., either party who desires to appeal from a judgment in such case must give the appeal bond there provided for. We construe that to be the holding in the two cases cited above. It is sufficient to say the bond must be given because the law in such cases so provides.

It is contended here relator is relieved of the necessity of giving the appeal bond because of the provisions of Art. 2276, R.C.S. The answer to this contention has already been given. This special proceeding is governed by the specific provision of law found in Rule 749, supra. Furthermore, Art. 2276 is applicable to appeals from trial courts to courts of civil appeals, as is evident from the provision itself, and has so been held. Jones...