Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. Looney

95 S.W. 691, 42 Tex. Civ. App. 234, 1906 Tex. App. LEXIS 233
CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedMarch 7, 1906
StatusPublished
Cited by14 cases

This text of 95 S.W. 691 (Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. Looney) 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
Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. Looney, 95 S.W. 691, 42 Tex. Civ. App. 234, 1906 Tex. App. LEXIS 233 (Tex. Ct. App. 1906).

Opinion

KEY, Associate Justice.

We sustain the first assignment of error which presents the question of the disqualification of the trial judge on account of his relationship to the plaintiff. The question was not raised until after the ease had been decided, and appellant moved for a new trial, but that is immaterial, because, if the judge was disqualified, it was not too late to raise the question in that manner. There is a properly authenticated statement of facts in the record relating to the hearing of the motion for new trial, by which it appears that it was shown without controversy that the grandmothers of the judge and of the plaintiff’s wife were sisters, and their great grandmother was one and the same person. A judge is disqualified, in this .State, when he is related to either of the parties by consanguinity or affinity within the third degree; and it has been decided that persons having the same great grandparent are so related. (Boker v. McRimmon, 48 S. W. Rep., 742, and case there cited.)

This is an action for damages, which if recovered, would constitute community property between the plaintiff and his wife; and therefore, the latter, though not mentioned in the pleadings, is a party to the suit within the purview of the statute defining disqualification of a judge.

The main statement of facts is not approved by the trial judge, and, for that reason, it can not be considered by this court. Hence we make no ruling upon any question which requires a reference to the statement of facts.

On all the other questions, except the one upon which the reversal is predicated, we rule against appellant. For the error pointed out, the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

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

Related

In Re Woodside-Florence Irr. Dist.
194 P.2d 241 (Montana Supreme Court, 1948)
Fry v. Tucker
202 S.W.2d 218 (Texas Supreme Court, 1947)
Williams v. Sinclair-Prairie Oil Co.
135 S.W.2d 211 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1939)
Texas Farm Bureau Cotton Ass'n v. Williams
300 S.W. 44 (Texas Supreme Court, 1927)
Amonette v. Taylor
244 S.W. 238 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1922)
Watson v. Payne
111 A. 462 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 1920)
First Nat. Bank of Ft. Worth v. Henwood
183 S.W. 5 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1916)
Seabrook v. First Nat. Bank of Port Lavaca
171 S.W. 247 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1914)
Jeffers v. Jeffers
71 S.E. 810 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1911)
Ex Parte West
132 S.W. 339 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1910)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
95 S.W. 691, 42 Tex. Civ. App. 234, 1906 Tex. App. LEXIS 233, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gulf-colorado-santa-fe-railway-co-v-looney-texapp-1906.