Alexander v. Connecticut General Life Ins. Co.

Court of Appeals of Texas

Alexander v. Connecticut General Life Ins. Co.

77 S.W.2d 284

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedDecember 13, 1934

DocketNo. 2661

StatusPublished

This text of 77 S.W.2d 284 (Alexander v. Connecticut General Life Ins. Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Alexander v. Connecticut General Life Ins. Co., 77 S.W.2d 284 (Tex. Ct. App. 1934).

Pincite

Opinion

O’QUINN, Justice.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the district court of Jefferson county, Sixtieth judicial district. The record was filed on the docket of this court on January 31,1934, and on June 29, 1934, was set for submission on December 6,1934. The ease is before us without briefs by either party, but appellee has filed its motion to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. There is no excuse offered why briefs have not been filed. It is well settled that the failure of parties to an appeal, without good cause being shown, to file briefs in accordance with the rules prescribed by the Supreme Court and the statutes, authorizes the Court of Civil Appeals to dismiss the appeal without searching the record for fundamental error. Haynes v. J. M. Radford Grocery Co., 118 Tex. 277, 14 S.W.(2d) 811: United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Hardy (Tex. Civ. App.) 24 S.W.(2d) 462; Ferguson v. Harris County (Tex. Civ. App.) 42 S.W.(2d) 297; Yuba Oil Co. v. Williams (Tex. Civ. App.) 50 S.W.(2d) 416, 417.

As the motion of appellee to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution was duly filed and is here insisted upon, and the same being a legal right which appellee has to urge, the motion should be granted, and it is so ordered, and the appeal dismissed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

O’QUINN, Justice.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the district court of Jefferson county, Sixtieth judicial district. The record was filed on the docket of this court on January 31,1934, and on June 29, 1934, was set for submission on December 6,1934. The ease is before us without briefs by either party, but appellee has filed its motion to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. There is no excuse offered why briefs have not been filed. It is well settled that the failure of parties to an appeal, without good cause being shown, to file briefs in accordance with the rules prescribed by the Supreme Court and the statutes, authorizes the Court of Civil Appeals to dismiss the appeal without searching the record for fundamental error. Haynes v. J. M. Radford Grocery Co., 118 Tex. 277, 14 S.W.(2d) 811: United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Hardy (Tex. Civ. App.) 24 S.W.(2d) 462; Ferguson v. Harris County (Tex. Civ. App.) 42 S.W.(2d) 297; Yuba Oil Co. v. Williams (Tex. Civ. App.) 50 S.W.(2d) 416, 417.

As the motion of appellee to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution was duly filed and is here insisted upon, and the same being a legal right which appellee has to urge, the motion should be granted, and it is so ordered, and the appeal dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

77 S.W.2d 284, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/alexander-v-connecticut-general-life-ins-co-texapp-1934.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack