Williams v. Wray, Motion No. 11392.

Decision Date30 May 1934
Docket NumberMotion No. 11392.
CitationWilliams v. Wray, 72 S.W.2d 577, 123 Tex. 466 (Tex. 1934)
PartiesWILLIAMS v. WRAY, Judge.
CourtTexas Supreme Court

William D. Wear, of Hillsboro, for relator.

CURETON, Chief Justice.

On May 26, 1934, Mrs. Janie L. Williams, as relator, filed a motion for leave to file a petition for mandamus against Hon. Walter L. Wray, Judge of the Sixty-Sixth Judicial District. The mandamus is sought for the purpose of requiring Judge Wray to proceed with the trial of cause No. 16,313, pending in his court, in which the relator here is plaintiff and S. R. Raby and A. G. Raby are defendants. Said defendants are not made parties to the petition for mandamus. They are adverse claimants whose rights would be affected by a mandamus directing Judge Wray to proceed to trial. They are obviously necessary parties to this proceeding, and because they have not been made parties the motion for leave to file must be denied. 28 Texas Jurisprudence, p. 627, § 62; p. 629, § 63; Cullem v. Latimer, 4 Tex. 329; Chappell v. Rogan, 94 Tex. 492, 62 S. W. 539; Fain v. McCain (Tex. Civ. App.) 199 S. W. 889 (writ refused); O'Keefe v. Robison, Com'r, 116 Tex. 398, 292 S. W. 854; Scruggs v. McCart, 119 Tex. 464, 32 S.W.2d) 823; 38 Corpus Juris, p. 853, § 556, and cases in the notes; State v. Thompson, 118 Tenn. 571, 102 S. W. 349, 20 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1; Judge Perth Co. Ct. v. Whaley, 12 U. C. C. P., 552.

The motion for leave to file is overruled without prejudice to relator's right...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
5 cases
  • Dick v. Kazen
    • United States
    • Texas Supreme Court
    • July 10, 1956
    ...the main suit are necessary parties to a mandamus proceeding to compel the trial judge to proceed to trial in the case. Williams v. Wray, 123 Tex. 466, 72 S.W.2d 577. Other parties to the main suit are necessary parties to a mandamus proceeding to compel a trial judge to set aside an order ......
  • State Bar of Tex. v. Heard
    • United States
    • Texas Supreme Court
    • July 30, 1980
    ...to require parties litigant adverse to the relator to be brought into the proceeding, is not presented. The cases of Williams v. Wray, 123 Tex. 466, 72 S.W.2d 577 (1934) and Lanford v. Smith, 128 Tex. 373, 99 S.W.2d 593 (1936), cited by respondent Heard, are distinguishable. In those cases ......
  • Caldwell v. Boyd
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • January 9, 1941
    ...Tex.Civ.App., 134 S.W.2d 428; Durden v. Patterson et al., 146 S.W.2d 296, decided by this Court on December 19, 1940, and Williams v. Wray, 123 Tex. 466, 72 S.W.2d 577. Motion for leave to file petition for mandamus refused without ...
  • H. M. Cohen Lumber & Building Co. v. McCalla
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • August 1, 1940
    ...without prejudice to the right of relator to again present the same to this court with all necessary parties included. Williams v. Wray, 123 Tex. 466, 72 S.W.2d 577; Goebel v. Carter, 124 Tex. 314, 77 S.W. 2d 215; Kelly v. Lobit, Tex.Civ.App., 134 S.W.2d Respondent's motion to dismiss for w......
  • Get Started for Free