Smith v. Rogers
Decision Date | 15 June 1939 |
Docket Number | No. 10951.,10951. |
Citation | 129 S.W.2d 776 |
Parties | SMITH et al. v. ROGERS, District Judge, et al. |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Original proceeding by Eleanor T. Smith and others against Max M. Rogers, District Judge, and Covey A. Beard, receiver, and others, for a writ of prohibition against the respondent judge and for an injunction against Covey A. Beard, receiver, and others.
Writs of prohibition and injunction refused.
Geo. N. Lusch and Walter T. Keith, both of Houston, for relators.
McComb & Davis, of Conroe, for respondents.
Relators seek a writ of prohibition against respondents, the Hon. Max M. Rogers, Judge of the District Court of Grimes County, and an injunction against Covey A. Beard, receiver, and against the attorneys for such receiver, to prevent any further proceedings in cause No. 13,118, now pending in that court.
It is made to appear that on June 21, 1938, in cause No. 13,010 on the docket of the district court of Grimes County, a judgment by default was taken by plaintiffs therein, who are relators here, against Covey A. Beard, receiver, Empire Lease and Royalty Company, cancelling a certain oil, gas and mineral lease, and awarding damages to plaintiffs; and further, that Covey A. Beard, receiver, brought up to this court by writ of error said cause, which is styled "Covey A. Beard, Receiver, Plaintiff in Error vs. Eleanor Smith et al., Defendants in Error," and is No. 10,915 on the docket of this court, having been filed herein on March 3, 1939. On February 10, 1939, Covey A. Beard, receiver, filed the cause which relators are here seeking to have prohibited from further proceedings. From an examination of plaintiffs' petition in cause No. 13,118, it is apparent that the purpose of that suit is to seek to have the judgment which was rendered in cause No. 13,010 set aside in so far as it awards damages to plaintiffs, on the grounds that the same was obtained by fraud, accident, or mistake, that is to say, the purpose of the suit is to attack the judgment by a bill-of-review.
As was stated by this court in Hacker v. Hacker, Tex.Civ.App., 110 S.W. 2d 923, 924, * * * ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Puls v. Clark
...Union Bank & Trust Co. of Fort Worth v. Smith, Tex.Civ.App., 166 S.W.2d 928; Sugg v. Sugg, Tex.Civ.App., 152 S.W.2d 446; Smith v. Rogers, Tex. Civ.App., 129 S.W.2d 776. It is incumbent upon one who seeks, by an independent proceeding, to set aside a judgment by default to show a good excuse......
-
Voskamp v. Arnoldy
...process. See American Standard Life Ins. Co. v. Denwitty, 256 S.W.2d 864, 868 (Tex.Civ.App.--Dallas 1953, writ dism'd); Smith v. Rogers, 129 S.W.2d 776 (Tex.Civ.App.--Galveston 1939, no writ); 4 R. McDonald, Texas Civil Practice in District and County Courts, sec. 18.27.6 (rev. We therefore......
-
Shaw v. Shaw
...See Wadkins v. Diversified Contractors, Inc., 734 S.W.2d 142, 144 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1987, no writ) (citing Smith v. Rogers, 129 S.W.2d 776 (Tex. Civ. App.—Galveston 1939, no writ)). To invoke a court's equitable powers, a bill of review complainant must file a petition that all......
-
McVeigh v. Lerner
...attack); Wadkins v. Diversified Contractors, Inc., 734 S.W.2d 142, 144 (Tex.App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1987, no writ), citing Smith v. Rogers, 129 S.W.2d 776 (Tex.Civ.App.--Galveston 1939, no writ) (points of error that can be raised on appeal must be raised then, because they cannot be rais......