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

2 Wilson 98
Court of Appeals of Texas·Decided February 27, 1884·No. No. 1590·Published·Cited by 2 cases

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] Law 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

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

2 Wilson 98 (G., C. & S. F. R'y Co. v. Conner) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Hinton v. Johnson
942 P.2d 1061 (Court of Appeals of Washington, 1997)
Love v. M'alister
5 Tenn. 65 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1817)