Lyell v. Guadaloupe County

28 Tex. 57
CourtTexas Supreme Court
DecidedDecember 15, 1866
StatusPublished
Cited by15 cases

This text of 28 Tex. 57 (Lyell v. Guadaloupe County) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Texas Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Lyell v. Guadaloupe County, 28 Tex. 57 (Tex. 1866).

Opinion

Coke, J.

—The appeal bond in this case hears date and was filed about ninety days after the adjournment of the term of the court, when judgment was rendered and notice of appeal was given.

The statute regulating appeals provides, that a party intending to appeal shall give notice of his intention during the term, and shall file an appeal bond within twenty days after the adjournment of the court. (O. & W. Dig., Arts. 548, 549; Paschal’s Dig., Art. 1491, Note 583.)

In Burr v. Lewis, 6 Tex., 76, it has been held to be indispensably necessary, in order to confer jurisdiction on this court by appeal, that these two requirements of the statute shall he complied with, and that an appeal is not perfected, and that consequently the jurisdiction of the court does not attach, unless the appeal bond is filed within twenty days after the term, although notice- of the appeal has been properly given. It is said there that neither of these requirements of the statute alone is sufficient, but that both must concur, otherwise this court has and can entertain no jurisdiction over the case.

We are satisfied of the correctness of the ruling of the court in that case, and regard it as decisive of this.

[59]*59This case has heen submitted on its merits, and no motion made to dismiss the appeal. H no 'question of jurisdiction were involved, it might well he held that all errors and irregularities committed in taking the appeal had been waived. But consent cannot confer jurisdiction.

We are of opinion that the case is not legally before us for revision,_ and that it should be dismissed.

Ordered accordingly.

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

Related

Consolidated Casualty Insurance Company v. Wade
373 S.W.2d 841 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1963)
Harrison v. Benavides
327 S.W.2d 610 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1959)
Pettit v. Engelking
260 S.W.2d 613 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1953)
Howe v. Howe
223 S.W.2d 944 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1949)
Backus v. Roper
195 S.W.2d 261 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1946)
Kirby v. South Texas Nat. Bank of San Antonio
127 S.W.2d 955 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1939)
Territory of Hawaii ex rel. Holloway v. Cotton
17 Haw. 374 (Hawaii Supreme Court, 1906)
Young v. Russell
60 Tex. 684 (Texas Supreme Court, 1884)
John v. Battle
58 Tex. 591 (Texas Supreme Court, 1883)
H. & T. C. R. R. v. McGlasson
1 White & W. 631 (Texas Commission of Appeals, 1881)
Smith & Williams v. Parks
55 Tex. 82 (Texas Supreme Court, 1881)
Halloran v. T. & N. O. R. R.
40 Tex. 465 (Texas Supreme Court, 1874)
McLane v. Russell
29 Tex. 127 (Texas Supreme Court, 1867)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
28 Tex. 57, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lyell-v-guadaloupe-county-tex-1866.