Burger v. Young

15 S.W. 107, 78 Tex. 656, 1890 Tex. LEXIS 1464
CourtTexas Supreme Court
DecidedNovember 25, 1890
DocketNo. 3216
StatusPublished
Cited by35 cases

This text of 15 S.W. 107 (Burger v. Young) 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
Burger v. Young, 15 S.W. 107, 78 Tex. 656, 1890 Tex. LEXIS 1464 (Tex. 1890).

Opinion

HENRY, Associate Justice.

— This suit was brought by appellant against several defendants to try title and for partition.

The plaintiff filed an amended original petition, in which the name of one of the defendants, who was never cited to appear, was omitted.

When the cause was called for trial all of the defendants except one had filed answers. None of the defendants sought by their pleadings affirmative relief.

When the cause was called for trial the plaintiff presented without objection a verbal motion for a continuance, which was overruled. Plaintiff then asked for time to put in writing his application for a continuance, which was refused. Plaintiff’s counsel then took a judgment by default against the defendant who had failed to answer, but refused to read his pleadings or introduce any evidence as to the other defendants. The court thereupon rendered a judgment upon the merits in favor of all of the defendents who had answered.

The refusal of plaintiff’s attorney to read his pleadings or to offer any evidence was in effect an abandonment of the prosecution of his cause. [657]*657„ It was as much so as an entire failure to appear would have been. In that state of the case the only order that the court could have properly made was one dismissing his cause for want of prosecution as to the defendants who appeared.

For the error of the court in rendering judgment upon the merits in favor of such defendants instead of dismissing the cause as to them for want of prosecution, the judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

Delivered November 25, 1890.

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

Related

in the Interest of J. A., Jr., a Minor Child
482 S.W.3d 141 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2015)
Slaughter v. Clement
64 S.W.3d 448 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2001)
State v. Herrera
25 S.W.3d 326 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2000)
Miller v. Kossey
802 S.W.2d 873 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1991)
Alvarado v. Magic Valley Electric Co-Op, Inc.
784 S.W.2d 729 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1990)
Buchanan v. Masood
631 S.W.2d 219 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1982)
Mountain States Leasing, Inc. v. El Paso Pipe & Supply Co.
612 S.W.2d 633 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1981)
Stein v. Lewisville Independent School District
481 S.W.2d 436 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1972)
Freeman v. Freeman
327 S.W.2d 428 (Texas Supreme Court, 1959)
Smock v. Fischel
207 S.W.2d 891 (Texas Supreme Court, 1948)
Roosth v. Poth
198 S.W.2d 132 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1946)
Zachary v. Overton
157 S.W.2d 405 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1941)
Johnson v. Campbell
154 S.W.2d 878 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1941)
Burton-Lingo Co. v. Lay
142 S.W.2d 448 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1940)
Stone v. Miller
134 S.W.2d 862 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1939)
Baker v. Arnett
106 S.W.2d 849 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1937)
Federal Royalties Co. v. McKnight
77 S.W.2d 542 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1934)
Callihan v. Colorado Nat. Bank.
58 S.W.2d 143 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1933)
Harris v. Phillips
56 S.W.2d 253 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1932)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
15 S.W. 107, 78 Tex. 656, 1890 Tex. LEXIS 1464, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/burger-v-young-tex-1890.