Home/Court of Appeals of Texas/Moore v. DeCuir

Moore v. DeCuir

286 S.W.2d 471, 1956 Tex. App. LEXIS 1992
CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedJanuary 12, 1956
Docket12971
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 286 S.W.2d 471 (Moore v. DeCuir) 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
Moore v. DeCuir, 286 S.W.2d 471, 1956 Tex. App. LEXIS 1992 (Tex. Ct. App. 1956).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The transcript and statement of facts in the above cause were received by the Clerk of this Court on December 12, 1955. In compliance with the provisions of Rules 388 and 389. Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, our Clerk examined the transcript and referred the same to the Court to determine whether or not it had been received in time to confer jurisdiction on this Court. Appellant was instructed to and did, on December 20, 1955, file a motion to the Court to order the Clerk to file the record on appeal. Upon consideration of such motion, we have concluded that we have no jurisdiction to issue such order.

The attempted appeal is from the District Court of Houston County, which court, since January 1, 1955, is subject to the provisions of Rule 329-b, T.R.C.P., Section 3, which provides: “3. All motions and amended motions for new trial must be determined within not exceeding forty-five (45) days after the original or amended motion is filed, unless by written agreement of the parties in the case, the decision of the motion is postponed to a later date.”

Examination of the transcript discloses the following material facts. Judgment of the trial court was entered April 25, 1955. Motion for new trial was filed May 4, 1955. Agreement of the parties extending the time for hearing the motion for new trial was filed May 4, 1955. Order overruling *472 the motion for new trial was entered October 15, 1955.

It is apparent that the question of this Court’s appellate jurisdiction depends upon the agreement of the parties extending the time for hearing the motion for new trial above mentioned. We conclude that the agreement does not meet the requirements of Rule 329-b, Section 3, T.R.C.P. For clarity we attach a copy of such agreement as Exhibit A.

Section 3 of Rule 329-b, T.R.C.P., has not been directly construed since its effective date. However, such rule is identical to the material portion of former Section (j) of Rule 330, which in turn,was a reenactment by the Supreme Court of Article 2092, Vernon’s Ann.Tex.Civ.St.

Section 28 of Article 2092, V.A.T.S., was construed by the Commission of Appeals of Texas in the case of Pierce v. Loyd, 131 Tex. 401, 114 S.W.2d 867. In an opinion adopted by the Supreme Court, the Commission of Appeals held that such statute contemplated that apy postponement of the decision of a motion for a new trial beyond forty-five days after filing thereof would be to a fixed or certain date, and that the parties’ agreement that motion for new trial might be acted on by the court within any time suiting its convenience was wholly ineffective. In view of such construction of identical language, we feel compelled to hold that Rule 329-b, Sec. 3, T.R.C.P., requiring determination of motion for new trial not over forty-five days after filing thereof, unless decision is postponed to later “date” by parties’ written-agreement, contemplates a fixed or certain-date beyond which the court may not delay its decision., We, therefore, hold that in the present case the motion for new trial was overruled by operation of law forty-five days after May 4, 1955. Since the record was not received by the Clerk of this Court within the time provided for in Rule 386, T.R.C.P., we have, no jurisdiction to do other than dismiss this appeal.

ESiWhoTGyKyHNYkzxv5AAwLItJ5SyjItX6G

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

Related

Duncan v. Tweedy
582 S.W.2d 614 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1979)
Kocman v. Kocman
581 S.W.2d 516 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1979)
Texas Pacific Indemnity Co. v. Building Material Distributors, Inc.
502 S.W.2d 922 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1973)
Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion
Texas Attorney General Reports, 1961
Burkham v. Ward
336 S.W.2d 452 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1960)
Weatherly v. Pena
335 S.W.2d 434 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1960)
Holland v. Foley Brothers Dry Goods Company
324 S.W.2d 430 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1959)
Newsfoto Publishing Co. v. Ezzell
320 S.W.2d 711 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1959)
Longview Transit Company v. Ferchill
312 S.W.2d 407 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1958)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
286 S.W.2d 471, 1956 Tex. App. LEXIS 1992, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moore-v-decuir-texapp-1956.