Forrest v. Rawlings

40 Tex. 502
Texas Supreme Court·Decided July 1, 1874·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

Roberts, Chief Justice.

In this case there is no assignment of .errors nor notice of appeal given in the transcript of the record. There is copied in the record what appears to be an entry in short, as if it had been placed on the judge’s docket, as follows:

“ H. H. Rawlings ) v. > “Car Forrest. )

Motion for new trial Sept. 6, 1873.

Í 3 W 2 overruled, •< Deft, except— ( .Appeal.”

From this entry it might be inferred that notice of appeal was given after the overruling the motion for new trial, but that it was not entered in the minutes. Both the order of the court overruling the motion for new trial and the notice of appeal have been omitted.

Such an entry so made cannot be held to be a notice of appeal in open court entered of record.

•Motion to dismiss appeal is sustained.

Dismissed.

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

Forrest v. Rawlings, 40 Tex. 502 (Tex. 1874).

40 Tex. 502 (Forrest v. Rawlings) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Beasley v. State
162 S.W.2d 968 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1942)
Crawford's Estate
90 P. 147 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1908)
Estado Land & Cattle Co. v. Ansley
24 S.W. 933 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1894)
Long v. State
3 Tex. Ct. App. 321 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1877)