Davy Burnt Clay Ballast Co. v. St. Louis Southwestern Ry. Co.

32 S.W.2d 822, 119 Tex. 455, 1930 Tex. LEXIS 147
Texas Supreme Court·Decided November 26, 1930·No. Application No. 17808.·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals, 32 S.W.(2d) 209, affirming the order of dismissal of the trial court, is clearly correct. Revised Statutes, article 1867, plainly directed the district court to dismiss this case, for the reason that no mandate had been taken out of the Court of Civil Appeals within one year after the final judgment in that court. The questions as to whether or not the mandate should have issued, as it did issue in this case, out of the Court of Civil Appeals after the expiration of one year from its original final judgment, and the proper construction of article 1775, Revised Statutes, relating to the Supreme Court, we find it unnecessary to pass upon or discuss.

Eor the reasons stated, .the application for writ of error is accordingly refused.

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

Davy Burnt Clay Ballast Co. v. St. Louis Southwestern Ry. Co., 32 S.W.2d 822, 119 Tex. 455, 1930 Tex. LEXIS 147 (Tex. 1930).

32 S.W.2d 822 (Davy Burnt Clay Ballast Co. v. St. Louis Southwestern Ry. Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Edwards Aquifer Authority v. Chemical Lime, Ltd.
291 S.W.3d 392 (Texas Supreme Court, 2009)
JOHN F. GRANT LUMBER COMPANY v. Bell
302 S.W.2d 714 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1957)