Veterans' Land Bd. v. Williams
| Decision Date | 27 October 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. B--6052,B--6052 |
| Citation | 543 S.W.2d 89 |
| Parties | VETERANS' LAND BOARD of the State of Texas et al., Petitioners, v. Gertrude WILLIAMS et al., Respondents. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Brown, Maroney, Rose, Baker & Barber, Robert L. Davis, Austin, for petitioners.
John G. Angell, Seguin, for respondents.
This case involves a question of abuse of discretion in dismissal for want of prosecution. The plaintiffs, Gertrude Williams, et al., brought a trespass to try title suit against the defendant, Veterans' Land Board in April 1968. An answer was filed, but the plaintiffs made no effort during the succeeding seven and one-half years to bring this suit to trial. During the summer of 1975, the District Court, on its own accord, set three 'show cause' hearings during which the seven-year delay could have been explained. Plaintiffs requested postponements in regard to each of the first two hearings. The District Court dismissed the case for want of prosecution when, on September 5, 1975, plaintiffs' attorney failed to attend the third hearing scheduled on the matter. Plaintiffs were present in the court but declined to proceed and offered no explanation for the seven-year delay. Plaintiffs stated only that their attorney had called them the day before to say he could not be present.
Plaintiff filed a motion for reinstatement, but failed to request a hearing on the motion. No reasons have been tendered to the trial court, to the Court of Civil Appeals, or to this Court for the attorney's failure to attend the hearing, or for the seven-year delay.
The Court of Civil Appeals reversed the judgment of the trial court and remanded the cause. 535 S.W.2d 209. The Court stated that:
The authority to dismiss for want of prosecution is found in Tex.R.Civ.P. 165a. That rule provides in part that, 'A case may be dismissed for want of prosecution on failure of any Party seeking affirmative relief Or his attorney to appear for any hearing or trial (docket call) of which he had notice . . .' As previously mentioned, the appellants Were present for the hearing.
We also appreciate the difficulties of the district court in attempting to bring the case to trial. Nevertheless, the parties were present at trial, and according to their motion to reinstate, the absence of their counsel was not at their choice. Under these circumstances, Rule 165a did not authorize a dismissal for want of prosecution.
Rule 165a is not the exclusive authority by which the trial court derives its authority or discretion to dismiss a cause for want of prosecution. Rule 165a provides in the last paragraph that:
'This dismissal and reinstatement procedure shall be cumulative, independent of, and unaffected by the rules and laws governing any other procedures available to the parties in such cases.'
We have held that a court has the inherent power to dismiss a suit for failure to prosecute it with due diligence even without statutory or rule authority. Bevil v. Johnson, 157 Tex. 621, 307 S.W.2d 85 (1957); First National Bank of Houston v. Fox, 121 Tex. 7, 39 S.W.2d 1085 (1931). The First Court of Civil Appeals, in a case handed down since Rule 165a became...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hicks v. First Nat. Bank in Dalhart
...lies within the judicial discretion of the trial court, subject to review only upon a clear showing of abuse. Veterans' Land Board v. Williams, 543 S.W.2d 89, 90 (Tex.1976). There is no automatic termination of a lawsuit, and consequent loss of subject matter jurisdiction, by reason of More......
-
3V Inc. v. JTS Enterprises Inc.
...Rule 165a of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure and from its own inherent power to manage its own docket. See Veterans' Land Bd. v. Williams, 543 S.W.2d 89, 90 (Tex. 1976); Burton v. Hoffman, 959 S.W.2d 351, 353 (Tex. App.--Austin 1998, no pet.). When an unreasonable delay in the prosecutio......
-
Dean's Campin' Co. v. Hardsteen, No. 13-05-468-CV (Tex. App. 8/29/2008)
...it with due diligence even without statutory or rule authority, subject to review for abuse of discretion. Veterans' Land Bd. v. Williams, 543 S.W.2d 89, 90 (Tex. 1976).7 The decision to dismiss a case for want of prosecution rests within the sound discretion of the trial court and can be d......
-
Tex. Wrecker Serv. v. Resendez
...See e.g., id. at 534 (finding that a nine-year delay without an explanation of good cause mandated dismissal); Veterans' Land Bd. v. Williams, 543 S.W.2d 89, 90 (Tex. 1976) (finding that a seven-and-one-half year delay failed to satisfy the demands of reasonable diligence); Denton Cnty. v. ......
-
CHAPTER 2 Standards of Review and Scope of Review
...332 S.W.3d 404, 411 (Tex. 2011).[220] MacGregor v. Rich, 941 S.W.2d 74, 75 (Tex. 1997) (per curiam).[221] Veterans' Land Bd. v. Williams, 543 S.W.2d 89, 90 (Tex. 1976) (per curiam).[222] Veterans' Land Bd. v. Williams, 543 S.W.2d 89, 90 (Tex. 1976) (per curiam).[223] See Alexander v. Lynda'......