Miller v. Banks

276 S.W. 768
Court of Appeals of Texas·Decided October 14, 1925·No. No. 6922.·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

BLAIR, J.

In July, 1925, this cause was set for submission October 7, 1925, of which appellant had notice. Up to this time he has filed no briefs, and, so far as the record discloses, never filed a copy of his brief in the trial court, as required by the statutes relating to this subject.

Along with the submission of the cause on October 7, 1925, we took under submission-appellee’s motion, filed October 5, 1925, to *769 dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution on tlie part of appellant.

Under such state of the record it becomes our duty to sustain the motion to dismiss the appeal, and it is also our duty to dismiss the appeal of our own motion. Rule 89; article 2116, R. S. 1911 (article 2283, R. S. 1925); Ry. Co. v. Jefferson (Tex. Civ. App.) 201 S. W. 211; Forbes v. Cannon (Tex. Civ. App.) 224 S. W. 944.

The motion to dismiss will he granted. The cause will also be dismissed upon our own motion for want of prosecution.

Motion granted;, appeal dismissed.

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

Miller v. Banks, 276 S.W. 768 (Tex. Ct. App. 1925).

276 S.W. 768 (Miller v. Banks) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Armstrong v. Armstrong
121 S.W.2d 1025 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1938)
McGhee v. Southwest Industries Co.
298 S.W. 609 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1927)
Miller v. Banks
280 S.W. 301 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1926)