Frank v. Sufford

Court of Appeals of Texas

Frank v. Sufford

216 S.W. 283, 1919 Tex. App. LEXIS 1131

Court of Appeals of Texas·Decided October 8, 1919·No. No. 6307.·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

COBBS, J.

This controversy grew out of a contested election ease. It is brought to this court by an application for a writ of error.

*284 Defendant in error files a motion to dismiss the same upon the ground that this court has no jurisdiction to entertain it, because it can only reach this court by appeal.

Such seems to be the settled law. Article S065, Vernon’s Sayles’ St.; Buckler v. Turbeville, 17 Tex. Civ. App. 120, 43 S. W. 810; Jackson et al. v. Butler et al., 38 Tex. Civ. App. 613, 86 S. W. 772.

The motion therefore is granted, and the cause dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

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

COBBS, J.

This controversy grew out of a contested election ease. It is brought to this court by an application for a writ of error.

*284 Defendant in error files a motion to dismiss the same upon the ground that this court has no jurisdiction to entertain it, because it can only reach this court by appeal.

Such seems to be the settled law. Article S065, Vernon’s Sayles’ St.; Buckler v. Turbeville, 17 Tex. Civ. App. 120, 43 S. W. 810; Jackson et al. v. Butler et al., 38 Tex. Civ. App. 613, 86 S. W. 772.

The motion therefore is granted, and the cause dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Frank v. Sufford, 216 S.W. 283, 1919 Tex. App. LEXIS 1131 (Tex. Ct. App. 1919).

Pincite

216 S.W. 283 (Frank v. Sufford) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related