Robinson v. Pitts

Court of Appeals of Texas

Robinson v. Pitts

249 S.W.2d 102, 1952 Tex. App. LEXIS 2147

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedMay 22, 1952

DocketNo. 4807

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 249 S.W.2d 102 (Robinson v. Pitts) 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

Robinson v. Pitts, 249 S.W.2d 102, 1952 Tex. App. LEXIS 2147 (Tex. Ct. App. 1952).

Pincite

Opinion

COE, Chief Justice.

This was a suit for the reformation of a Vendor’s lien note executed by appellants, payable to the appellee. Upon a favorable jury finding, judgment was entered in favor of the appellee Pitts, reforming the Vendor’s lien note. Judgment was entered on the 29th day of September, 1951. Appellants’ motion for new trial was filed on the 25th day of October, 1951. Appellee has filed a motion to dismiss this appeal for the reason that appellants’ motion for new trial was not filed within the time provided for by Rule 320, which was applicable to the trial court. Rule 324 makes a motion for a new trial a prerequisite to an appeal in any case tried by a jury where no motion for judgment non obstante veredicto or a motion on the verdict of the jury was filed by appellant. Neither of such motions were filed by the appellants in this case, and under the authority of Wagner v. Walenta, Tex.Civ.App., 225 S.W.2d 463 and the cases therein cited, including Rule 324, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, appellee’s motion to dismiss this appeal is granted.

The appeal is dismissed.

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

COE, Chief Justice.

This was a suit for the reformation of a Vendor’s lien note executed by appellants, payable to the appellee. Upon a favorable jury finding, judgment was entered in favor of the appellee Pitts, reforming the Vendor’s lien note. Judgment was entered on the 29th day of September, 1951. Appellants’ motion for new trial was filed on the 25th day of October, 1951. Appellee has filed a motion to dismiss this appeal for the reason that appellants’ motion for new trial was not filed within the time provided for by Rule 320, which was applicable to the trial court. Rule 324 makes a motion for a new trial a prerequisite to an appeal in any case tried by a jury where no motion for judgment non obstante veredicto or a motion on the verdict of the jury was filed by appellant. Neither of such motions were filed by the appellants in this case, and under the authority of Wagner v. Walenta, Tex.Civ.App., 225 S.W.2d 463 and the cases therein cited, including Rule 324, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, appellee’s motion to dismiss this appeal is granted.

The appeal is dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

249 S.W.2d 102, 1952 Tex. App. LEXIS 2147, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/robinson-v-pitts-texapp-1952.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack