Quanah, A. & P. Ry. Co. v. Watkins

Court of Appeals of Texas

Quanah, A. & P. Ry. Co. v. Watkins

193 S.W. 356, 1916 Tex. App. LEXIS 1342

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedDecember 13, 1916

DocketNo. 1120.

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 193 S.W. 356 (Quanah, A. & P. Ry. Co. v. Watkins) 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

Quanah, A. & P. Ry. Co. v. Watkins, 193 S.W. 356, 1916 Tex. App. LEXIS 1342 (Tex. Ct. App. 1916).

Pincite

Opinions

HALL, J.

Appellant moves the court for permission to file the transcript, which reached the clerk of this court 3 days after the expiration of the statutory time for filing it here.. The uncontroverted affidavit of the attorneys for appellant shows that they repeatedly, during the 90 days requested R. A. Seay, clerk of the county court of Motley county, to prepare the transcript, and that he promised them faithfully every time to. comply with their request, and utterly failed to do so. We doubt the propriety of granting this motion, since it appears that this is the same clerk whose dereliction was considered in the case of Q., A. & P. Ry. Co. v. Leckie, 176 S. W. 662, and appellants were forcibly reminded in that case that they could not depend upon his promises: If appellant had applied for a mandamus, stating the facts set up in this motion, this court would have granted the relief. The granting of this motion must not be taken as a precedent, especially in cases where attorneys know from experience, that the clerk of the trial court is habitually negligent in the performance of his duties.

The motion is reluctantly granted.

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

HALL, J.

Appellant moves the court for permission to file the transcript, which reached the clerk of this court 3 days after the expiration of the statutory time for filing it here.. The uncontroverted affidavit of the attorneys for appellant shows that they repeatedly, during the 90 days requested R. A. Seay, clerk of the county court of Motley county, to prepare the transcript, and that he promised them faithfully every time to. comply with their request, and utterly failed to do so. We doubt the propriety of granting this motion, since it appears that this is the same clerk whose dereliction was considered in the case of Q., A. & P. Ry. Co. v. Leckie, 176 S. W. 662, and appellants were forcibly reminded in that case that they could not depend upon his promises: If appellant had applied for a mandamus, stating the facts set up in this motion, this court would have granted the relief. The granting of this motion must not be taken as a precedent, especially in cases where attorneys know from experience, that the clerk of the trial court is habitually negligent in the performance of his duties.

The motion is reluctantly granted.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

193 S.W. 356, 1916 Tex. App. LEXIS 1342, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/quanah-a-p-ry-co-v-watkins-texapp-1916.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack