Merkel v. Garrett

121 S.W. 256, 61 Tex. Civ. App. 353, 1910 Tex. App. LEXIS 758
CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedMay 31, 1910
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 121 S.W. 256 (Merkel v. Garrett) 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
Merkel v. Garrett, 121 S.W. 256, 61 Tex. Civ. App. 353, 1910 Tex. App. LEXIS 758 (Tex. Ct. App. 1910).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

— In this case relators seek by writ of mandamus to compel the clerk of this court to file in this court the record on appeal in the case of Henrietta Merkel et al., v. Houston, Oak Lawn and Magnolia Park Eailroad Company, which the cleric has refused to file on the ground that the appeal has not been perfected so as to give this court jurisdiction.

The case was tried at a term of the District Court of Harris County, which by law might continue in session more than eight weeks. Motion for a new trial was overruled and notice of appeal given February 3, 1910. The appeal bond was filed February 34, 1910. The statute (Art. 1387, Rev. Stats.) clearly provides that if the court in which the case is tried may by law continue more than eight weeks, in order to perfect the appeal the appeal bond must be filed within twenty days after notice of appeal is given, unless the appellant resides out of the county, which is not claimed to be the case here. The language of the statute is so plain as to leave no room for doubt as to its meaning. The 'appeal bond was not filed in time, and the clerk acted properly in refusing to file the record. The writ of mandamus is refused.

Mandamus Refused.

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

Related

Railroad Commission v. Oil Field Haulers Ass'n
369 S.W.2d 931 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1963)
American Rio Grande Land & Irrigation Co. v. Karle
237 S.W. 358 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1922)
Quanah, A. & P. Ry. Co. v. R. D. Jones Lumber Co.
178 S.W. 858 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1915)
Brunner v. Mobile-Gulfport Lumber Co.
66 So. 438 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1914)
Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. State
167 S.W. 192 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1914)
Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Langbehn
158 S.W. 244 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1913)
Galveston, H. & S. A. Ry. Co. v. J. H. Nations Meat & Supply Co.
136 S.W. 833 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1911)
Morgan's L. & T. R. & S. S. v. Railroad Commission
53 So. 890 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1910)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
121 S.W. 256, 61 Tex. Civ. App. 353, 1910 Tex. App. LEXIS 758, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/merkel-v-garrett-texapp-1910.