Vinson v. W. T. Carter & Bro.
| Decision Date | 22 April 1914 |
| Docket Number | (App. No. 8629.) |
| Parties | VINSON et al. v. W. T. CARTER & BRO. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Trespass to try title by John F. Vinson and others, against W. T. Carter & Brother and others. A judgment for defendants was affirmed by the Court of Civil Appeals (161 S. W. 49), and plaintiffs petition for writ of error. Petition dismissed.
V. A. Collins and Lipscomb & Lipscomb, all of Beaumont, for applicant.
It is shown by the petition for writ of error that no motion for rehearing was filed in the Court of Civil Appeals within the time prescribed by the statute. It it stated that the failure to file such motion within the proper time was due to an undue and unanticipated delay in its transmission by express. A motion for leave to file the motion for rehearing as of time was overruled by the court on January 8, 1914. A second motion of the same nature was thereupon filed, and overruled on January 22, 1914. The petition for writ of error was filed in the Court of Civil Appeals more than 30 days after the overruling of the first motion for leave to file the motion for rehearing, but within 30 days from the overruling of the second motion.
We would not refuse to consider the petition for writ of error, notwithstanding the Court of Civil Appeals had not acted directly upon the motion for rehearing, if we had jurisdiction and were of the opinion that it was sufficiently shown that the failure to duly file the motion for rehearing was due to accident or some cause other than neglect of the applicant. Sams v. Creager, 85 Tex. 497, 22 S. W. 399. It is apparent, however, that we are without jurisdiction. It is essential to the jurisdiction of this court to grant a writ of error that the petition for the writ be filed in the Court of Civil Appeals within 30 days from the overruling of the motion for rehearing. Schleicher v. Runge, 90 Tex. 456, 39 S. W. 279. Where under such circumstances as are shown here the Court of Civil Appeals declines to consider the motion for rehearing, its action in overruling a motion for leave to file it necessarily fixes the time from which the period prescribed for the filing of the petition shall be reckoned, as in such case the overruling of the motion for leave to file amounts to overruling the motion for rehearing. A different rule would permit an extension of the time fixed by the statute for the filing of the petition for writ of error simply through the filing of successive motions of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hartfield v. Quarterman
...then Rule 310's fifteen-day clock would never start to run and the court's mandate would never issue. Cf. Vinson v. W.T. Carter & Bro., 106 Tex. 273, 166 S.W. 363, 363 (Tex.1914). Because the State filed more than one motion for leave, that exception is inapplicable 13. WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE,......
-
Reynolds v. Dallas County
...375, 269 S.W. 1024; Wagner v. Garrett, 114 Tex. 362, 269 S.W. 1030; Long v. Martin, 112 Tex. 365, 247 S.W. 827; Vinson v. W. T. Carter & Bro., 106 Tex. 273, 166 S.W. 363; Flattery v. Miller, Tex.Sup., 212 S.W. 932; Schleicher v. Runge, 90 Tex. 456, 39 S.W. It will also be noted that the Cou......
-
Heney v. Davidson, Motion No. 9222; App. No. 17578.
...v. Runge, 90 Tex. 456-458, 39 S. W. 279. This interpretation of article 1742 has since been uniformly followed. Vinson v. Carter & Brother, 106 Tex. 273, 166 S. W. 363; Flattery v. Miller (Tex. Sup.) 212 S. W. 932; Long v. Martin, 112 Tex. 365, 247 S. W. 827; National Compress Co. v. Hamlin......
-
Wagner v. Garrett
...would have to be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Long v. Martin, 112 Tex. 365, 247 S. W. 827, and cases there cited; Vinson v. Carter, 106 Tex. 273, 166 S. W. 363; Henningsmeyer v. Bank, 109 Tex. 116, 195 S. W. 1137, 201 S. W. Inasmuch as under our own adjudication the application for w......