Curtis v. Carey

378 S.W.2d 418, 1964 Tex. App. LEXIS 2163
CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedApril 16, 1964
Docket47
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 378 S.W.2d 418 (Curtis v. Carey) 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
Curtis v. Carey, 378 S.W.2d 418, 1964 Tex. App. LEXIS 2163 (Tex. Ct. App. 1964).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellee has filed a motion to dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction which must be sustained.

The judgment was rendered on November 7, 1963. On December 6, 1963, twenty-nine days thereafter, original motion for new trial was filed and no action was taken thereon. On the last mentioned date notice of appeal was filed for the first time. On December 24, 1963, forty-seven days after the judgment, an appeal bond was filed by appellant.

It thus appears that notice of appeal was not filed within ten days of the judgment under Rule 353, Texas Rules Civil Procedure, and appellant’s appeal bond was not filed within thirty days of the judgment under Rule 356, T.R.C.P.

• The tardy filing of a motion for new trial does not operate to extend the time for filing notice of appeal or an appeal bond as is provided by said Rules 353 and 356. An appellaté court does not acquire jurisdiction of an appeal where notice of appeal, if required, as in this case, has not been given within the time required by law. This, is also true where an appeal bond has not been timely filed. Donald v. John Vinson, Inc., 344 S.W.2d 751 (Tex.Civ.App. 1961, wr. ref.); Dillard v. McClain, 159 Tex. 559, 324 S.W.2d 163 (1959); Park v. Essa Texas Corp., 158 Tex. 259, 311 S.W.2d 228 (1958); A. F. Jones & Sons v. Republic Supply Co., 151 Tex. 90, 246 S.W.2d 853 (1952); Howe v. Howe, 223 S.W.2d 944 (Tex.Civ.App.1949, wr. ref.).

The record before us is not sufficient to authorize consideration of the case as though writ of error had been perfected.

We have no alternative but to dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.

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

Related

Autry v. Autry
605 S.W.2d 625 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1980)
Metal Enterprises, Inc. v. Don Love, Inc.
559 S.W.2d 90 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1977)
Calk v. Gans & Smith Insurance Agency, Inc.
535 S.W.2d 755 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1976)
Mevico, Inc. v. Carruth
520 S.W.2d 801 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1975)
Midland-Guardian Co. v. Mercantile Credit Corp.
516 S.W.2d 246 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1974)
Grivel v. Atlantic Mutual Insurance Company
513 S.W.2d 297 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1974)
Voss v. Foster
466 S.W.2d 325 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1970)
Scarborough v. Scarborough
406 S.W.2d 277 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1966)
Curtis v. Carey
393 S.W.2d 185 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1965)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
378 S.W.2d 418, 1964 Tex. App. LEXIS 2163, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/curtis-v-carey-texapp-1964.