Reasonover v. Reasonover

46 S.W.2d 382
CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedJanuary 13, 1932
DocketMotion No. 10821
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 46 S.W.2d 382 (Reasonover v. Reasonover) 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
Reasonover v. Reasonover, 46 S.W.2d 382 (Tex. Ct. App. 1932).

Opinion

SMITH, J.

Writ of error was perfected in this case on September 25, 1931, and under the provisions of article 1839', R. S. 1925, as amended by an Act of the 42d Legislature (Gen. Laws 1931, ch. 66, § 1, p. 10O [Vernon’s Ann. Civ. St. art. 1839]), plaintiffs in error were required to file the transcript in this court within sixty days from said date, unless this court, “for good cause shown before the expiration of such sixty day period,” should “permit the transcript to be thereafter filed upon such terms as it shall prescribe.”

Plaintiffs in error tendered the transcript to the clerk of this court for filing on December 9, 1931, which was after the expiration of the sixty-day period, and, the clerk having refused to file the record, plaintiffs in error have presented a motion in this court for leave to file it. The motion must be denied.

While the statute gives this court discretion in the matter of extending the time for filing records, such discretion is not operative except upon “good cause shown before [383]*383the expiration of such sixty day period.” In other words, by the plain provision of the statute, an appellant or plaintiff in error may invoke the discretion of this court in such matter only when he applies therefor prior to the time he is required by statute to file the record herein.

It appears that before the expiration of the sixty-da^ period, upon plaintiffs in error’s application therefor, the trial court granted and entered an order allowing plaintiffs in error ninety days from the perfection of the appeal in which to file the record in this court. That order is of no effect, however, for, as a matter of course, this court, and not the district court, has the' power of control over such extensions, and such power may be put in operation only by timely invocation.

The motion for leave must-¡be denied.

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

Related

Parks v. Purnell
120 S.W.2d 895 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1938)
Hunter v. Moore
62 S.W.2d 97 (Texas Supreme Court, 1933)
Hunter v. Moore
62 S.W.2d 97 (Texas Commission of Appeals, 1933)
Acola v. J. I. Case Co.
57 S.W.2d 196 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1933)
Shelton v. Northern Assur. Co.
56 S.W.2d 1111 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1933)
Van Horn v. Hidalgo County Water Control & Improvement Dist. No. 1
51 S.W.2d 641 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1932)
Reese v. Owens
48 S.W.2d 697 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1932)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
46 S.W.2d 382, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/reasonover-v-reasonover-texapp-1932.