G., C. & S. F. R'y Co. v. Conner

Court of Appeals of Texas

G., C. & S. F. R'y Co. v. Conner

2 Wilson 98

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedFebruary 27, 1884

DocketNo. 1590

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 2 Wilson 98 (G., C. & S. F. R'y Co. v. Conner) 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

G., C. & S. F. R'y Co. v. Conner, 2 Wilson 98 (Tex. Ct. App. 1884).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

White, P. J.

§ 199. Certiorari; motion to dismiss must be made at the return term; supplemental motion. The rule is well settled that a motion to dismiss or quash a writ of certiorari cannot be made after the return term. [O’Brien v. Dunn, 5 Tex. 574; Ables v. Pearle, 10 Tex. 285; Gabel v. City of Houston, 29 Tex. 335; Mowery v. Lanson, 12 Tex. 31.] And the fact that a motion was made and overruled at the return term does not authorize a supplemental motion, embracing additional grounds, to be made and determined at a succeeding term of the court. [Holt v. McCaskey, 14 Tex. 229; Maurice v. Crowell, 4 Tex. [99]*99Law Journal, p. 418.] The certiorari in this case was dismissed upon a supplemental motion made after the return term, and after a motion to dismiss had been made and overruled at the return term. Held, error.

February 27, 1884.

Ee versed and remanded.

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

Opinion by

White, P. J.

§ 199. Certiorari; motion to dismiss must be made at the return term; supplemental motion. The rule is well settled that a motion to dismiss or quash a writ of certiorari cannot be made after the return term. [O’Brien v. Dunn, 5 Tex. 574; Ables v. Pearle, 10 Tex. 285; Gabel v. City of Houston, 29 Tex. 335; Mowery v. Lanson, 12 Tex. 31.] And the fact that a motion was made and overruled at the return term does not authorize a supplemental motion, embracing additional grounds, to be made and determined at a succeeding term of the court. [Holt v. McCaskey, 14 Tex. 229; Maurice v. Crowell, 4 Tex. [99]*99Law Journal, p. 418.] The certiorari in this case was dismissed upon a supplemental motion made after the return term, and after a motion to dismiss had been made and overruled at the return term. Held, error.

February 27, 1884.

Ee versed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 Wilson 98, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/g-c-s-f-ry-co-v-conner-texapp-1884.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack