Universal Credit Co. v. Dunklin
| Decision Date | 28 April 1937 |
| Docket Number | No. 12905.,12905. |
| Parties | UNIVERSAL CREDIT CO. v. DUNKLIN, Chief Justice, et al. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
S. L. Lewis, of Dallas, for relator.
S. P. Boling, of Graham, for respondents.
The motion of relator for leave to file petition for the issuance of a writ of mandamus against the members of the Court of Civil Appeals for the Second supreme judicial district directing them "to certify the judgment and opinion of the said Court of Civil Appeals in Cause No. 13518, styled Universal Credit Company, Appellant, v. S. P. Boling, Appellee , for review and consideration" is overruled, for the reason that the petition does not set out the particular question or questions of law that the Court of Civil Appeals was requested, and refused, to certify and does not ask or pray for the certification of any particular question or questions of law. A copy of the motion to certify made in the Court of Civil Appeals is attached to the petition for writ of mandamus. It states that appellant is attaching to the motion a suggested form of the questions requested to be certified, but no copy of such suggested form of questions is attached to the petition for the writ. The prayer of the motion filed in the Court of Civil Appeals is that "the questions of law contained in the opinion and judgment of this honorable court be certified." Neither this prayer nor the prayer in the petition for writ of mandamus is for the certification of any particular question or questions of law. Both are in substance for the certification of the entire opinion and judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals. Article 1855 of the Revised Civil Statutes of 1925 makes it the duty of the Court of Civil Appeals when its decision "on any question of law" is in conflict with an opinion rendered by the Supreme Court or by some other Court of Civil Appeals to "transmit the question of law involved in the cause wherein said conflict of opinion has arisen" to the Supreme Court for adjudication. A relator invoking the extraordinary writ of mandamus to compel a Court of Civil Appeals to perform the duty made mandatory by this statute must show by his petition that he has formally requested the Court of Civil Appeals to certify the particular question or questions of law involved in the cause wherein the conflict has arisen and that the court has refused to certify such particular question or questions. And he may not by petition for mandamus obtain the certification of the entire case or of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fielder v. Parker
...but in a per curiam opinion expressed that court's disagreement with the decision of the Court of Civil Appeals. Universal Credit Co. v. Dunklin, 129 Tex. 324, 105 S.W.2d 867. The court repeated what, in effect, had often been declared before [page 868]: "The plea of privilege in the form p......
-
A. H. Belo Corporation v. Blanton
...county; (4) that the party who paid the usurious interest resided in Young county when the contract was made." Universal Credit Co. v. Dunklin, 129 Tex. 324, 105 S.W.2d 867, 868. In other words, if the defendant did not reside in the county where the suit was filed, notwithstanding that the......
-
U.S. Fire Ins. Co. v. Alvarez
...such cases as Fitting Supply Co. v. Bell County Solar Control Corp., 605 S.W.2d 856 (Tex.1980) (usury case); Universal Credit Co. v. Dunklin, 129 Tex. 324, 105 S.W.2d 867 (1937) (usury case); Joc Oil Aromatics, Inc. v. Commercial Fuel Oil Co., 564 S.W.2d 490 (Tex.Civ.App.-Houston (1st Dist.......
-
Rhodes v. City of Austin
...venue statutes are made a part of the general venue statute by the terms of subdivision 30. See, e. g., Universal Credit Co. v. Dunklin, 129 Tex. 324, 105 S.W.2d 867, 868 (1937), and its progeny. However, all separate statutes providing for venue are not controlled by the general venue stat......