Jowell v. A. G. McAdams Lumber Co.

Court of Appeals of Texas

Jowell v. A. G. McAdams Lumber Co.

224 S.W. 1114, 1920 Tex. App. LEXIS 967

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedOctober 13, 1920

DocketNo. 1705.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 224 S.W. 1114 (Jowell v. A. G. McAdams Lumber Co.) 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

Jowell v. A. G. McAdams Lumber Co., 224 S.W. 1114, 1920 Tex. App. LEXIS 967 (Tex. Ct. App. 1920).

Pincite

Opinion

HUFF, C. J.

The defendant in error moves to dismiss this appeal and writ of error on the ground that the writ of error was not sued out within the time Required by article 2086, R. C. St., as amended by the Thirty-Sixth Legislature, chapter 85, p. 136. The judgment was rendered on May 2, 1919, and motion for new trial overruled May 12, 1919, in which notice of appeal was given. The application or petition for writ of error was filed in the district court on the 13th day of April, 1920, and citation issued and served on the defendants in error April 17, April 19, April 20, and May 5, respectively. The appeal bond was filed on April 13, 1920; the record was filed in this court June 23, 1920. The law, as amended by the Thirty-Sixth Legislature, gave six months after final judg *1115 ment is rendered in which to apply for a writ of error. The amendment was approved March 19, 1919, and took effect 90 days after adjournment of that session of the Legislature. The Legislature adjourned on the 19th day of March, 1919. The law, therefore, became effective June 17, 1919. Applying the rule adopted by the Supreme Court, the application was filed too late, and we are without jurisdiction. Odum v. Garner, 86 Tex. 374, 25 S. W. 18; Wright v. Hardie, 88 Tex. 653, 32 S. W. 885; Railway Co. v. Pruter, 220 S. W. 797. The motion will he sustained, and the writ of error dismissed.

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

HUFF, C. J.

The defendant in error moves to dismiss this appeal and writ of error on the ground that the writ of error was not sued out within the time Required by article 2086, R. C. St., as amended by the Thirty-Sixth Legislature, chapter 85, p. 136. The judgment was rendered on May 2, 1919, and motion for new trial overruled May 12, 1919, in which notice of appeal was given. The application or petition for writ of error was filed in the district court on the 13th day of April, 1920, and citation issued and served on the defendants in error April 17, April 19, April 20, and May 5, respectively. The appeal bond was filed on April 13, 1920; the record was filed in this court June 23, 1920. The law, as amended by the Thirty-Sixth Legislature, gave six months after final judg *1115 ment is rendered in which to apply for a writ of error. The amendment was approved March 19, 1919, and took effect 90 days after adjournment of that session of the Legislature. The Legislature adjourned on the 19th day of March, 1919. The law, therefore, became effective June 17, 1919. Applying the rule adopted by the Supreme Court, the application was filed too late, and we are without jurisdiction. Odum v. Garner, 86 Tex. 374, 25 S. W. 18; Wright v. Hardie, 88 Tex. 653, 32 S. W. 885; Railway Co. v. Pruter, 220 S. W. 797. The motion will he sustained, and the writ of error dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

224 S.W. 1114, 1920 Tex. App. LEXIS 967, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jowell-v-a-g-mcadams-lumber-co-texapp-1920.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack