Wilson Finance Co. v. State
Decision Date | 19 July 1961 |
Docket Number | No. 10818,10818 |
Citation | 348 S.W.2d 639 |
Parties | WILSON FINANCE COMPANY et al., Appellants, v. STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Head & Lyle, Corpus Christi, J. C. Hinsley, Austin, for appellants.
Will Wilson, Atty. Gen., Henry G. Braswell, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
This motion, by the State of Texas, is to amend our judgment in our Cause No. 10,818, opinion dated December 7, 1960, [reported 342 S.W.2d 117] motion for rehearing overruled January 4, 1961, application for writ of error refused, N.R.E., April 5, 1961.
The amendment sought is that the judgment be enlarged by rendering judgment against appellants for the face amount of the supersedeas bonds filed by appellants in that case.
The only authorities cited by the State in support of its motion are Rules 435 and 364(g), Texas Rules of Civil Procedure the pertinent portions of which we quote:
'When a Court of Civil Appeals affirms the judgment or decree of the court below, or proceeds to modify the judgment and to render such judgment or decree against the appellant as should have been rendered by the court below, it shall render judgment against the appellant and the sureties on his supersedeas bond, if any, for the performance of said judgment or decree, * * *' (Rule 435).
(Rule 364 (g)).
In Davis v. State ex rel. Incorporated Town of Anthony, 321 S.W.2d 636, 639, El Paso Court of Civil Appeals, writ ref., N.R.E., it was held that a summary judgment was improper in a suit brought in the District Court by the State upon a supersedeas bond given under the provisions of Rule 364(g) supra, the Court saying:
We cite this case, and its language, as indicating, in our opinion, the proper procedure for recovery of damages or other liability on or under a supersedeas bond given under the circumstances of this case.
It is our opinion that Rule 435, supra, does not comprehend a judgment on a supersedeas bond such as is authorized under Rule 364(g). The judgment on the bond under Rule 435 is 'for the performance of said judgment or degree' and for costs.
A judgment under Rule 364(g), as sought here, has no relation to the performance of the judgment obtained in Cause No. 10,818. It is for such liability as a Court may determine to be equitable for taking a fruitless appeal. We believe the proper C...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Missouri-Kansas-Texas R. Co. v. Alvarez
...Alvarez' motion for rehearing without opinion, this Court will lack jurisdiction to entertain any motions whatsoever. Wilson Finance Co. v. State, 348 S.W.2d 639 (Tex.Civ.App.1961, no In his motion for rehearing, Alvarez contends that MKT failed to preserve the trial court's error in commen......
-
Los Campeones, Inc. v. Valley Intern. Properties, Inc.
...of such deposits entered after the issuance of our mandate exceeded the scope of the mandate. See Wilson Finance Company v. State, 348 S.W.2d 639, 641 (Tex.Civ.App. Austin 1961, writ ref'd.); State v. Watts, 197 S.W.2d 197, 198-99 (Tex.Civ.App. Austin 1946, writ ref'd.). Therefore, contrary......
-
Brown v. Gage, 17575
... ... procured from any other source; (7) and if it be for the absence of a witness, movant shall state the name of the witness; (8) the residence of the witness; (9) what he expects to prove by him ... terms or by stating conclusions. Wilson Finance Company v. State, 342 S.W.2d 117 (Austin, Tex.Civ.App ., 1960, motion to amend dism., 348 ... ...
-
International Sec. Life Ins. Co. v. Finck
... ... Wright, 144 Tex. 114, 188 S.W.2d 983 (1945). Certainly the exception did not clearly state the nature of the errors complained of as required by the rules and as is clearly stated in the ... Wilson Finance Company v. State, 342 S.W .2d 117 (Tex.Civ.App.--Austin 1960, writ ref'd, n.r.e. 2 ) ... ...