Texas Seed & Floral Co. v. Chicago Set & Seed Co.

178 S.W. 731, 1915 Tex. App. LEXIS 835
Court of Appeals of Texas·Decided May 21, 1915·No. No. 1457.·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

WILLSON, C. J.

The appeal is from a judgment rendered February 18, 1914, by a district (the sixty-eighth) court of Dallas county, at a term thereof which, as authorized by law (article 30, subd. 68, Vernon’s Statutes), continued more than eight weeks, to wit, from the first Monday in February to May 2, 1914. Notice of the appeal was given April 28, 1914, when appellant’s motion for a new trial was overruled. As appellants principal office was in Dallas county, it must, to confer jurisdiction of the appeal on this court, have filed an appeal bond with the clerk of the court below within 20 days after it gave the notice. Article 2084, Vernon’s Statutes. This it did not do. The bond was not filed until May 19, 1914. Therefore the appeal must be dismissed because this court is without jurisdiction to hear and determine it. Dilworth v. Steves, 174 S. W. 279; Bank v. Carper, 28 Tex. Civ. App. 334, 67 S. W. 188; Hillman v. Galligher, 52 Tex. Civ. App. 41, 113 S. W. 321; Mara v. Branch (Civ. App.) 127 S. W. 1076; Block v. Largent (Civ. App.) 127 S. W. 1076; Railway Co. v. Leach (Civ. App.) 129 S. W. 399.

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

Texas Seed & Floral Co. v. Chicago Set & Seed Co., 178 S.W. 731, 1915 Tex. App. LEXIS 835 (Tex. Ct. App. 1915).

178 S.W. 731 (Texas Seed & Floral Co. v. Chicago Set & Seed Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Graham v. Quail Independent School Dist.
299 S.W. 913 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1927)
American Cent. Ins. Co. v. Wise
295 S.W. 1109 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1927)
Judkins v. Miller
250 S.W. 290 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1923)
Yount v. Fagin
225 S.W. 591 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1920)