Edens v. Cleaves

Court of Appeals of Texas

Edens v. Cleaves

206 S.W. 722, 1918 Tex. App. LEXIS 1147

Court of Appeals of Texas·Decided November 14, 1918·No. No. 834.·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

HARPER, C. J.

This action was instituted in the probate court by appellees to probate the will of W. E. Rhoton, deceased. The probate was contested upon the ground of unsound mind and undue influence. The will was probated, and an appeal was taken to the district court; and from the judgment sustaining the probate there, notice of appeal was given and bond was filed for appeal to this court.

March 21, 1918, upon hearing, we rendered an opinion affirming the proceedings, published in 202 S. W. 355. An application was thereafter filed in the Supreme Court for a writ of error. On October 17, 1918, this application was dismissed for want of jurisdiction, and, during the pendency of this application for writ of error before the Supreme Court, appellees filed their motion in this court to dismiss the appeal,. and to withdraw the opinion affirming the case and to strike the cause from the docket, upon the ground that this court did not acquire jurisdiction, for the reason that the appeal bond was not filed in the district court within 20 days after adjournment of said court, as provided by article 2084, Revised Civil Statutes of Texas.

[1,2] The cause was tried at the May term of the Sixty-Fifth district court, 1917, which term could not continue more than 8 weeks, and which was in fact adjourned June 28, 1917. The appeal bond, sought to be made *723 the basis of the appeal, was filed July 27, 1917, so the bond was not filed within 20 days after the expiration of the term; therefore this court has not acquired jurisdiction of this appeal. Hartsough-Stewart Construction Co. et al. v. Harty & Vogelsang, 183 S. W. 1. The opinion heretofore rendered is for that reason withdrawn. That the fact that this motion is filed at a subsequent term is not an objection to such action, see Nunez v. McElroy, 184 S. W. 531, and authorities there cited. The jurisdictional facts aboye noted did not clearly appear in the original transcript, but were brought to our attention by amended transcript since the opinion was written.

The appeal is dismissed.

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

HARPER, C. J.

This action was instituted in the probate court by appellees to probate the will of W. E. Rhoton, deceased. The probate was contested upon the ground of unsound mind and undue influence. The will was probated, and an appeal was taken to the district court; and from the judgment sustaining the probate there, notice of appeal was given and bond was filed for appeal to this court.

March 21, 1918, upon hearing, we rendered an opinion affirming the proceedings, published in 202 S. W. 355. An application was thereafter filed in the Supreme Court for a writ of error. On October 17, 1918, this application was dismissed for want of jurisdiction, and, during the pendency of this application for writ of error before the Supreme Court, appellees filed their motion in this court to dismiss the appeal,. and to withdraw the opinion affirming the case and to strike the cause from the docket, upon the ground that this court did not acquire jurisdiction, for the reason that the appeal bond was not filed in the district court within 20 days after adjournment of said court, as provided by article 2084, Revised Civil Statutes of Texas.

[1,2] The cause was tried at the May term of the Sixty-Fifth district court, 1917, which term could not continue more than 8 weeks, and which was in fact adjourned June 28, 1917. The appeal bond, sought to be made *723 the basis of the appeal, was filed July 27, 1917, so the bond was not filed within 20 days after the expiration of the term; therefore this court has not acquired jurisdiction of this appeal. Hartsough-Stewart Construction Co. et al. v. Harty & Vogelsang, 183 S. W. 1. The opinion heretofore rendered is for that reason withdrawn. That the fact that this motion is filed at a subsequent term is not an objection to such action, see Nunez v. McElroy, 184 S. W. 531, and authorities there cited. The jurisdictional facts aboye noted did not clearly appear in the original transcript, but were brought to our attention by amended transcript since the opinion was written.

The appeal is dismissed.

Edens v. Cleaves, 206 S.W. 722, 1918 Tex. App. LEXIS 1147 (Tex. Ct. App. 1918).

Pincite

206 S.W. 722 (Edens v. Cleaves) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related