Cozart v. Buck

Court of Appeals of Texas

Cozart v. Buck

110 S.W.2d 962, 1937 Tex. App. LEXIS 1298

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedNovember 24, 1937

DocketNo. 3585.

StatusPublished

This text of 110 S.W.2d 962 (Cozart v. Buck) 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

Cozart v. Buck, 110 S.W.2d 962, 1937 Tex. App. LEXIS 1298 (Tex. Ct. App. 1937).

Pincite

Opinion

HIGGINS, Justice.

In the justice court the appellee recovered judgment for $144-against the appellants D. E. Cozart and Abilene Salvage Company. Later the defendants named applied for a writ of certiorari to review the judgment, which writ was granted. Later appellee, Buck, moved to dismiss the writ. The motion to dismiss was granted, the record showing affirmatively it was granted because Cozart and Abilene Salvage Company had not pursued their remedy of appeal from the judgment of the justice of the peace. In this ruling the court erred; for, as a general proposition, the remedy of certiorari is cumulative of, and independent of, the right to appeal in the ordinary manner. It is not essential that the applicant should show why he did not appeal. 26 Tex.Jur. p. 890; B. E. Hail v. J. F. Magale, 1 White & W. Civ.Cas.Ct.App. § 852; Quinn & Browser v. Elam, 1 White & W. Civ.Cas.Ct.App. § 1108; Von Koehring v. Schneider, 24 Tex.Civ.App. 469, 60 S.W. 277; Lucas et al. v. Harrison et al. (Tex.Civ.App.) 139 S.W. 659; Lanning v. Yarbrough (Tex.Civ.App.) 35 S.W.2d 211; Northside Chevrolet Co. et al. v. Nolen (Tex.Civ.App.) 67 S.W.2d 520.

Reversed and remanded.

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

HIGGINS, Justice.

In the justice court the appellee recovered judgment for $144-against the appellants D. E. Cozart and Abilene Salvage Company. Later the defendants named applied for a writ of certiorari to review the judgment, which writ was granted. Later appellee, Buck, moved to dismiss the writ. The motion to dismiss was granted, the record showing affirmatively it was granted because Cozart and Abilene Salvage Company had not pursued their remedy of appeal from the judgment of the justice of the peace. In this ruling the court erred; for, as a general proposition, the remedy of certiorari is cumulative of, and independent of, the right to appeal in the ordinary manner. It is not essential that the applicant should show why he did not appeal. 26 Tex.Jur. p. 890; B. E. Hail v. J. F. Magale, 1 White & W. Civ.Cas.Ct.App. § 852; Quinn & Browser v. Elam, 1 White & W. Civ.Cas.Ct.App. § 1108; Von Koehring v. Schneider, 24 Tex.Civ.App. 469, 60 S.W. 277; Lucas et al. v. Harrison et al. (Tex.Civ.App.) 139 S.W. 659; Lanning v. Yarbrough (Tex.Civ.App.) 35 S.W.2d 211; Northside Chevrolet Co. et al. v. Nolen (Tex.Civ.App.) 67 S.W.2d 520.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

110 S.W.2d 962, 1937 Tex. App. LEXIS 1298, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cozart-v-buck-texapp-1937.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack