Hodginson v. Pena

Court of Appeals of Texas

Hodginson v. Pena

247 S.W. 600

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedJanuary 24, 1923

DocketNo. 6867.

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 247 S.W. 600 (Hodginson v. Pena) 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

Hodginson v. Pena, 247 S.W. 600 (Tex. Ct. App. 1923).

Pincite

Opinion

SMITH, J.

íhe record consists of the transcript only. No statement of facts or briefs were filed in the cause, and therefore the judgment must be affirmed, unless fundamental error is apparent from the record presented. The suit was originally instituted in the court of a justice of the peace, where it was tried and judgment was rendered on November 23, 1921. No motion for new'trial was filed, nor appeal to'the county court taken, so far as the record shows. But on January 25, two months later, appellant filed in the county court an application for writ of certiorari to the justice’s court, which was granted, but later dismissed, this appeal resulting. ¡

The application for writ of error was insufficient, and was properly dismissed. In ofder to warrant writ of certiorari in such cases, it must be shown: First, that the applicant has exercised due diligence and lost his right of appeal through no neglect on his part; and, second, that he has a good defense against his adversary which entitles him to recover. Here neither element was shown in the application. No diligence whatever was shown by appellant, and no facts whatever were set up- to show his defenses, if any he had.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

SMITH, J.

íhe record consists of the transcript only. No statement of facts or briefs were filed in the cause, and therefore the judgment must be affirmed, unless fundamental error is apparent from the record presented. The suit was originally instituted in the court of a justice of the peace, where it was tried and judgment was rendered on November 23, 1921. No motion for new'trial was filed, nor appeal to'the county court taken, so far as the record shows. But on January 25, two months later, appellant filed in the county court an application for writ of certiorari to the justice’s court, which was granted, but later dismissed, this appeal resulting. ¡

The application for writ of error was insufficient, and was properly dismissed. In ofder to warrant writ of certiorari in such cases, it must be shown: First, that the applicant has exercised due diligence and lost his right of appeal through no neglect on his part; and, second, that he has a good defense against his adversary which entitles him to recover. Here neither element was shown in the application. No diligence whatever was shown by appellant, and no facts whatever were set up- to show his defenses, if any he had.

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

247 S.W. 600, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hodginson-v-pena-texapp-1923.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack