Drawe v. McGuffin

355 S.W.2d 738, 1961 Tex. App. LEXIS 2476
Court of Appeals of Texas·Decided March 21, 1961·No. 13881·Published·Cited by 8 cases

Opinion

POPE, Justice.

Plaintiff' filed suit upon a promissory note, and on April 11, 1960, it was dismissed for non-prosecution. On April 28, seventeen days later, plaintiff filed a motion to reinstate. On May 13, thirty-two days later, the court granted the motion. On October 14, after a trial on the merits, the court rendered a “take nothing” judgment, and plaintiff appealed.

A motion to reinstate is in the nature of a motion for new trial. Love v. State Bank & Trust Co., 126 Tex. 591, 90 S.W.2d 819. When one files a motion for new trial after ten days have expired, it does not operate to extend the court’s jurisdiction over the judgment for a period of more than thirty days from the date of the rendition of judgment. Rule 329b, § 5, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure; Cathcart v. Childers, Tex.Civ.App., 296 S.W.2d 340. Hence, the order of reinstatement on May 13 was made after the court had lost jurisdiction. It had no power to render a “take nothing” judgment. Since there was no timely appeal from the final order of dismissal on April 11, 1960, this Court has no jurisdiction.

The appeal is dismissed.

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

Drawe v. McGuffin, 355 S.W.2d 738, 1961 Tex. App. LEXIS 2476 (Tex. Ct. App. 1961).

355 S.W.2d 738 (Drawe v. McGuffin) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Dahlila Guerra Casso v. CITY OF McALLEN
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2009
Hancock v. Gathright
451 S.W.2d 591 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1970)
Stuart v. City of Houston
419 S.W.2d 702 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1967)
Scarborough v. Scarborough
406 S.W.2d 277 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1966)
Langford v. Douglas
359 S.W.2d 951 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1962)