Osborne v. Younger

Court of Appeals of Texas

Osborne v. Younger

218 S.W. 1089, 1920 Tex. App. LEXIS 133

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedFebruary 12, 1920

DocketNo. 1059.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 218 S.W. 1089 (Osborne v. Younger) 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

Osborne v. Younger, 218 S.W. 1089, 1920 Tex. App. LEXIS 133 (Tex. Ct. App. 1920).

Pincite

Opinion

HARPER, C. J.

Appellant filed this suit in trespass to try title against appellee September 25, 1902. The notations on the dock *1090 et show that it was “passed” and “continued” from time to time to July 15, 1918, when plaintiff was required to file cost bond, and October 14, 1918, dismissed for failure to comply with the rule for costs as required by law. On May 23, 1919, at subsequent term, plaintiff filed motion to reinstate the cause. This appeal is from the order overruling the motion to reinstate, filed May 23, 1919.

The order contains the following recitals: The assignment is that the court erred in holding that it had “no jurisdiction or right to reinstate said cause.” In this there was no error. It is well settled that after the adjournment of the term at which such judgment is entered it is no longer subject "to the control of the trial court. Eddleman v. Mcdiathery, 74 Tex. 280, 11 S. W. 1100; Hester v. Baskin, 184 S. W. 726.

Affirmed.

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

HARPER, C. J.

Appellant filed this suit in trespass to try title against appellee September 25, 1902. The notations on the dock *1090 et show that it was “passed” and “continued” from time to time to July 15, 1918, when plaintiff was required to file cost bond, and October 14, 1918, dismissed for failure to comply with the rule for costs as required by law. On May 23, 1919, at subsequent term, plaintiff filed motion to reinstate the cause. This appeal is from the order overruling the motion to reinstate, filed May 23, 1919.

The order contains the following recitals: The assignment is that the court erred in holding that it had “no jurisdiction or right to reinstate said cause.” In this there was no error. It is well settled that after the adjournment of the term at which such judgment is entered it is no longer subject "to the control of the trial court. Eddleman v. Mcdiathery, 74 Tex. 280, 11 S. W. 1100; Hester v. Baskin, 184 S. W. 726.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

218 S.W. 1089, 1920 Tex. App. LEXIS 133, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/osborne-v-younger-texapp-1920.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack