Sales v. Darden

Court of Appeals of Texas

Sales v. Darden

112 S.W.2d 201, 1937 Tex. App. LEXIS 1394

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedDecember 30, 1937

DocketNo. 3274.

StatusPublished

This text of 112 S.W.2d 201 (Sales v. Darden) 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

Sales v. Darden, 112 S.W.2d 201, 1937 Tex. App. LEXIS 1394 (Tex. Ct. App. 1937).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The record in this case is before us without briefs; on this statement it is the practice of this court to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution, Shoemaker v. Tedford, Tex.Civ.App., 74 S.W.2d 707, but appellee has filed a motion, asking that the judgment of the lower court be affirmed, which forces us to search the record for fundamental error, Brown v. Spector, Tex.Civ.App., 70 S.W.2d 478. On the face of the record, it appears -that the appeal was prosecuted from a default judgment in favor of appellee against appellant, rendered on a petition wherein appellee prayed for judgment for the sum of $317, the balance due on an account for attorney’s fees, and for $50 which he alleged he had agreed to pay his attorneys to file and prosecute this suit for him. The record negatives an obligation on the part of appellant to pay an attorney’s fee for the prosecution of this suit. The judgment'for attorney’s fees in the sum of $50 is fundamentally erroneous. Houston Production Co. v. Taylor, Tex.Civ.App., 33 S.W.2d 202.

The judgment of the lower court is reformed by eliminating therefrom recovery for $50 as attorney’s fees, and, as reformed, it is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The record in this case is before us without briefs; on this statement it is the practice of this court to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution, Shoemaker v. Tedford, Tex.Civ.App., 74 S.W.2d 707, but appellee has filed a motion, asking that the judgment of the lower court be affirmed, which forces us to search the record for fundamental error, Brown v. Spector, Tex.Civ.App., 70 S.W.2d 478. On the face of the record, it appears -that the appeal was prosecuted from a default judgment in favor of appellee against appellant, rendered on a petition wherein appellee prayed for judgment for the sum of $317, the balance due on an account for attorney’s fees, and for $50 which he alleged he had agreed to pay his attorneys to file and prosecute this suit for him. The record negatives an obligation on the part of appellant to pay an attorney’s fee for the prosecution of this suit. The judgment'for attorney’s fees in the sum of $50 is fundamentally erroneous. Houston Production Co. v. Taylor, Tex.Civ.App., 33 S.W.2d 202.

The judgment of the lower court is reformed by eliminating therefrom recovery for $50 as attorney’s fees, and, as reformed, it is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

112 S.W.2d 201, 1937 Tex. App. LEXIS 1394, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sales-v-darden-texapp-1937.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack