Basil P. Panas Co. v. L. Haden

Court of Appeals of Texas

Basil P. Panas Co. v. L. Haden

84 S.W.2d 1118, 1935 Tex. App. LEXIS 816

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedJuly 12, 1935

DocketNo. 2825.

StatusPublished

This text of 84 S.W.2d 1118 (Basil P. Panas Co. v. L. Haden) 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

Basil P. Panas Co. v. L. Haden, 84 S.W.2d 1118, 1935 Tex. App. LEXIS 816 (Tex. Ct. App. 1935).

Pincite

Opinion

COMBS, Justice.

This appeal is from a judgment of the county court at law of Harris county in favor of defendant in error, John L. Had-en, who was plaintiff in the trial court, for $184.78.

Defendant in error has filed a motion to affirm for want of prosecution and for 10 per cent, penalty for frivolous appeal.

The record discloses that plaintiffs in error waited nearly six months to prose *1119 cute their appeal. Then, when the record was filed in the appellate court, they filed what is dubbed a “partial statement of facts.” They have filed no briefs, and have made no further appearance in the case, not even filing any reply to the motion to affirm and for damages. So far as reflected by the record, the judgment is for services rendered plaintiffs in error by the defendant in error, and same is justly due and unpaid. An examination of the record convinces us there was no sufficient cause for this appeal and that same was prosecuted for delay only. The motion to affirm with 10 per cent, damages is granted. Article 1860, Vernon’s Ann. Civ. St.; Bozman v. Masterson (Tex. Civ. App.) 45 S. W. 758; Brady Mut. Life Ins. Ass’n v. Shank (Tex. Civ. App.) 67 S.W.(2d) 413.

Affirmed, with penalty of $18.47.

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

COMBS, Justice.

This appeal is from a judgment of the county court at law of Harris county in favor of defendant in error, John L. Had-en, who was plaintiff in the trial court, for $184.78.

Defendant in error has filed a motion to affirm for want of prosecution and for 10 per cent, penalty for frivolous appeal.

The record discloses that plaintiffs in error waited nearly six months to prose *1119 cute their appeal. Then, when the record was filed in the appellate court, they filed what is dubbed a “partial statement of facts.” They have filed no briefs, and have made no further appearance in the case, not even filing any reply to the motion to affirm and for damages. So far as reflected by the record, the judgment is for services rendered plaintiffs in error by the defendant in error, and same is justly due and unpaid. An examination of the record convinces us there was no sufficient cause for this appeal and that same was prosecuted for delay only. The motion to affirm with 10 per cent, damages is granted. Article 1860, Vernon’s Ann. Civ. St.; Bozman v. Masterson (Tex. Civ. App.) 45 S. W. 758; Brady Mut. Life Ins. Ass’n v. Shank (Tex. Civ. App.) 67 S.W.(2d) 413.

Affirmed, with penalty of $18.47.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

84 S.W.2d 1118, 1935 Tex. App. LEXIS 816, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/basil-p-panas-co-v-l-haden-texapp-1935.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack