Spaulding Mfg. Co. v. Kuykendall

182 S.W. 371, 1916 Tex. App. LEXIS 35
Court of Appeals of Texas·Decided January 22, 1916·No. No. 7464.·Published

Opinion

RAINEY, C. J.

We conclude that this court has no jurisdiction of this case, for the reason that the record shows the appeal was not perfected in time.

It appears from the record before us that the motion for new trial was presented and overruled by the court below on the 29th day of January, 1915, and the court adjourned on the 30th da- of January, 1915. The appeal bond was approved by the clerk on March 3, 1915, which was more than 30 days after the order overruling the motion for a new trial. The time of filing the bond is not shown, but assuming that the clerk’s approval was not made until he received it for filing, as he had no right to do so until then, we conclud'e that the bond was not filed in time for perfecting the appeal.

1 The appeal is therefore dismissed.

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

Spaulding Mfg. Co. v. Kuykendall, 182 S.W. 371, 1916 Tex. App. LEXIS 35 (Tex. Ct. App. 1916).

182 S.W. 371 (Spaulding Mfg. Co. v. Kuykendall) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.