B. & M. MACHINE CO. v. Avionic Enterprises, Inc.

566 S.W.2d 901, 21 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 396, 1978 Tex. LEXIS 355
CourtTexas Supreme Court
DecidedMay 24, 1978
DocketB-7471
StatusPublished
Cited by24 cases

This text of 566 S.W.2d 901 (B. & M. MACHINE CO. v. Avionic Enterprises, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Texas Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
B. & M. MACHINE CO. v. Avionic Enterprises, Inc., 566 S.W.2d 901, 21 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 396, 1978 Tex. LEXIS 355 (Tex. 1978).

Opinion

ON APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF ERROR

PER CURIAM.

B. & M. Machine Company instituted this suit against Avionic Enterprises, Inc. alleging breach of contract. The court of civil appeals dismissed B. & M.’s appeal for want of jurisdiction because B. & M. failed to post a cost bond within thirty days of the first judgment. 561 S.W.2d 558. On April 14, 1977, the trial court rendered its first judgment, headed “Final Judgment.” On April 29, 1977, the court rendered a second judgment, headed “Amended Judgment.” On May 5, 1977, the trial court filed its *902 findings of fact and conclusions of law which specifically noted that the first judgment had been amended on April 29, 1977. On May 20,1977, B. & M. filed its cost bond appealing from the second judgment. The bond was timely for an appeal from the second judgment.

The trial court retained jurisdiction to reform or set aside its first judgment for a period of thirty days following rendition. Rule 329b, Tex.R.Civ.P. The record reflects that the second judgment reformed and, in effect, vacated the first judgment. The decision of the court of civil appeals conflicts with this court’s opinion in City of West Lake Hills v. State ex rel. City of Austin, 466 S.W.2d 722 (Tex.1971).

Accordingly, we grant B. & M.’s writ of error and without hearing oral argument, reverse the judgment of the court of civil appeals and remand this cause to the court of civil appeals for that court’s consideration. Rule 483, Tex.R.Civ.P.

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

Related

Jerri Lynn Kirkland v. James Calvin Kirkland
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2023
in Re Donovan Mittlelsted
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2023
Ronald B. Palmer v. Nakaysone Julie Palmer
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2012
Bramlett v. Phillips
359 S.W.3d 304 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2012)
Sikes v. HERITAGE OAKS WEST RETIR. VILLAGE
238 S.W.3d 807 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2007)
Sikes v. Heritage Oaks West Retirement Village
238 S.W.3d 807 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2007)
Wortham v. Dow Chemical Co.
179 S.W.3d 189 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2005)
Quanaim v. Frasco Restaurant & Catering
17 S.W.3d 30 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2000)
Anderson v. Teco Pipeline Co.
985 S.W.2d 559 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1999)
Preston v. American Eagle Insurance
948 S.W.2d 18 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1997)
Woosley v. Smith
925 S.W.2d 84 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1996)
Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. v. Wasiak
883 S.W.2d 402 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1994)
Azbill v. DALLAS CTY. CHILD PROT. SERV.
860 S.W.2d 133 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1993)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
566 S.W.2d 901, 21 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 396, 1978 Tex. LEXIS 355, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/b-m-machine-co-v-avionic-enterprises-inc-tex-1978.