Robertson v. Blackwell Zinc Co., A-10536
| Decision Date | 28 April 1965 |
| Docket Number | No. A-10536,A-10536 |
| Citation | 390 S.W.2d 472 |
| Parties | French M. ROBERTSON, Petitioner, v. BLACKWELL ZINC COMPANY, INC., et al., Respondents. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
King Willoughby, Vletas & Dickenson, Abilene, Clark, Thomas, Harris, Denius & Winters and James H. Keahey, Austin, for petitioner.
Perkins, Bezoni & Kirwan, Stubbeman, McRae, Sealy & Laughlin, Midland, Paul Petty, Ballinger, Black & Stayton, Austin, Hudson, Keltner, Smith & Cunningham, Fort Worth, Phipps, Smith & Alexander, McLeod, Mills, Shirley & Alexander, Galveston, Dean Moorhead, Austin, for respondents.
The Court of Civil Appeals correctly held that there was a defect in parties defendant and that the judgment rendered by the trial court should be reversed and the cause remanded for new trial. Ambassador Oil Co. v. Robertson, 384 S.W.2d 752. The issue upon which this holding was based was properly presented by application for writ of error to the Court of Civil Appeals filed by parties not expressly named as defendants in the plaintiff's trial petition but considered as parties to the suit by the trial court under the doctrine of virtual representation. Rule 42, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Such parties did not participate in person or by attorney in the trial before the District Court and hence were not precluded from obtaining appellate review by writ of error because of the provisions of Article 2249a, Vernon's Ann.Tex.Stats.
The holding mentioned supports the order of reversal and remand and the application for writ of error to this Court is 'refused, no reversible error.' Our action herein is not to be construed as approving or disapproving the other holdings contained in the opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Naylor (In re State)
...S.W.3d at 110 (discussing virtual representation doctrine while making no reference to “equity” or “equitable”); Robertson v. Blackwell Zinc Co., 390 S.W.2d 472, 472 (Tex.1965) (same); Gunn v. Cavanaugh, 391 S.W.2d 723, 724 (Tex.1965) (same); Wood, 41 Tex. at 542 (same); Smith, 2 Tex. at 42......
-
InterFirst Bank Dallas, N.A. v. Risser
...of Ambassador Oil Corporation v. Robertson, 384 S.W.2d 752 (Tex.Civ.App.-Austin 1964), writ ref'd n.r.e. sub nom., Robertson v. Balckwell Zinc. Co., 390 S.W.2d 472 (Tex.1965), indicates that one sale was not sufficient to fix a fair market value. In the case of Taylor County v. Olds, 67 S.W......
-
Ex parte Stiles
...1991, writ denied); Jernigan v. Jernigan, 677 S.W.2d 137, 140 (Tex.App.--Dallas 1984, no writ); see also Robertson v. Blackwell Zinc Co., 390 S.W.2d 472 (Tex.1965). We recently applied the doctrine of virtual representation in Libhart v. Copeland to conclude that three members of a church, ......
-
Gunn v. Cavanaugh
...n. r. e.) A person who is a party under the doctrine of virtual representation (Rule No. 42) may also appeal, Robertson v. Blackwell Zinc Company, 390 S.W.2d 472 (Tex.Sup.1965), but that is not the case here. No one purported to represent the interests of the petitioner, Richard Gunn in the......