Federal Royalties Co. v. McKnight

Court of Appeals of Texas

Federal Royalties Co. v. McKnight

77 S.W.2d 542

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedDecember 20, 1934

DocketNo. 3151

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 77 S.W.2d 542 (Federal Royalties Co. v. McKnight) 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

Federal Royalties Co. v. McKnight, 77 S.W.2d 542 (Tex. Ct. App. 1934).

Pincite

Opinion

PELPHREX,'Chief Justice.

This suit was instituted by plaintiffs in error on October 12, 1933. Citation was served [543]*543on defendants in error requiring them to ap: pear at the November term of court. Defendants in error answered by a general denial and a plea of not guilty. By agreement of the parties the cause was continued, until the March term, 1934. At the March term, 1934, plaintiffs in error failing to appear, the court rendered judgment that they take nothing by their suit and that defendants in error recover the costs from them.

Plaintiffs in error have brought the cause to this court by writ of error and ask that the judgment be reversed because the trial court was without authority to render any judgment, under the facts here disclosed, except one of dismissal.

With this contention we must agree. 15 Tex. Jur.,- § 39, p. 283; Burger v. Young, 78 Tex. 656, 15 S. W. 107; Parr v. Chittim (Tex. Com. App.) 231 S. W. 1079.

The position taken by defendants in error that having prayed in their answer, “Wherefore defendants.pray judgment that plaintiffs take nothing, and that they go hence with their costs without day,” they were seeking such affirmative relief as would authorize the court to render judgment against, plaintiffs in error for the possession of the land, is untenable.

For the error of the court in rendering judgment on the merits in favor of defendants in error, instead of dismissing the cause as to them for want of prosecution, the judgment must be reversed and the cause remanded, and it is so ordered.

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

PELPHREX,'Chief Justice.

This suit was instituted by plaintiffs in error on October 12, 1933. Citation was served [543]*543on defendants in error requiring them to ap: pear at the November term of court. Defendants in error answered by a general denial and a plea of not guilty. By agreement of the parties the cause was continued, until the March term, 1934. At the March term, 1934, plaintiffs in error failing to appear, the court rendered judgment that they take nothing by their suit and that defendants in error recover the costs from them.

Plaintiffs in error have brought the cause to this court by writ of error and ask that the judgment be reversed because the trial court was without authority to render any judgment, under the facts here disclosed, except one of dismissal.

With this contention we must agree. 15 Tex. Jur.,- § 39, p. 283; Burger v. Young, 78 Tex. 656, 15 S. W. 107; Parr v. Chittim (Tex. Com. App.) 231 S. W. 1079.

The position taken by defendants in error that having prayed in their answer, “Wherefore defendants.pray judgment that plaintiffs take nothing, and that they go hence with their costs without day,” they were seeking such affirmative relief as would authorize the court to render judgment against, plaintiffs in error for the possession of the land, is untenable.

For the error of the court in rendering judgment on the merits in favor of defendants in error, instead of dismissing the cause as to them for want of prosecution, the judgment must be reversed and the cause remanded, and it is so ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

77 S.W.2d 542, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/federal-royalties-co-v-mcknight-texapp-1934.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack