Vinson v. W. T. Carter & Bros.

Texas Supreme Court

Vinson v. W. T. Carter & Bros.

166 S.W. 363, 106 Tex. 273, 1914 Tex. LEXIS 65

CourtTexas Supreme Court

DecidedApril 22, 1914

DocketApplication No. 862.

StatusPublished

Cited by18 cases

This text of 166 S.W. 363 (Vinson v. W. T. Carter & Bros.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Texas Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Vinson v. W. T. Carter & Bros., 166 S.W. 363, 106 Tex. 273, 1914 Tex. LEXIS 65 (Tex. 1914).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice PHILLIPS

delivered the opinion of the court.

It is shown by the petition for writ of error that no motion for rehearing was filed in the Court of Civil Appeals within the time prescribed by the statute. It is stated that the failure to file such motion within the proper time was due to an undue and unanticipated delay in its transmission by express. A motion for leave to file the motion for rehearing as of time was overruled by the court on January 8, 1914. A second motion of the same nature was thereupon filed, and overruled on January 33, 1914. The petition for writ of error was filed in the Court of Civil Appeals more than thirty days after the overruling of the first motion for leave to file the motion for rehearing, but within thirty days from the overruling of the second motion.

*274 We would not refuse to consider the petition for writ of error, notwithstanding the Court of Civil Appeals had not acted directly upon the motion for rehearing, if we had jurisdiction and were of the opinion that it was sufficiently shown that the failure to duly file the motion for rehearing was due to accident or some cause other than neglect of the applicant. Sams v. Creager, 85 Texas, 497. It is apparent, however, that we are without jurisdiction. It is essential to the jurisdiction of this court to grant a writ of error that the petition for the writ be filed in the Court of Civil Appeals within thirty days from the overruling of the motion for rehearing. Schleicher v. Runge, 90 Texas, 456. Where, under such circumstances as are shown here, the Court of Civil Ajipeals declines to consider the motion for rehearing, its action in overruling a motion for leave to file it necessarily fixes the time from which the period prescribed for the filing of the petition shall be reckoned as in such case the overruling of the motion for leave to file amounts to> overruling the motion fo-r rehearing. A different rule would permit an extension of the time fixed by the statute for the filing of the petition for writ of error simply through the filing of successive motions of the-same character.

Petition dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

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

Mr. Justice PHILLIPS

delivered the opinion of the court.

It is shown by the petition for writ of error that no motion for rehearing was filed in the Court of Civil Appeals within the time prescribed by the statute. It is stated that the failure to file such motion within the proper time was due to an undue and unanticipated delay in its transmission by express. A motion for leave to file the motion for rehearing as of time was overruled by the court on January 8, 1914. A second motion of the same nature was thereupon filed, and overruled on January 33, 1914. The petition for writ of error was filed in the Court of Civil Appeals more than thirty days after the overruling of the first motion for leave to file the motion for rehearing, but within thirty days from the overruling of the second motion.

*274 We would not refuse to consider the petition for writ of error, notwithstanding the Court of Civil Appeals had not acted directly upon the motion for rehearing, if we had jurisdiction and were of the opinion that it was sufficiently shown that the failure to duly file the motion for rehearing was due to accident or some cause other than neglect of the applicant. Sams v. Creager, 85 Texas, 497. It is apparent, however, that we are without jurisdiction. It is essential to the jurisdiction of this court to grant a writ of error that the petition for the writ be filed in the Court of Civil Appeals within thirty days from the overruling of the motion for rehearing. Schleicher v. Runge, 90 Texas, 456. Where, under such circumstances as are shown here, the Court of Civil Ajipeals declines to consider the motion for rehearing, its action in overruling a motion for leave to file it necessarily fixes the time from which the period prescribed for the filing of the petition shall be reckoned as in such case the overruling of the motion for leave to file amounts to> overruling the motion fo-r rehearing. A different rule would permit an extension of the time fixed by the statute for the filing of the petition for writ of error simply through the filing of successive motions of the-same character.

Petition dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

166 S.W. 363, 106 Tex. 273, 1914 Tex. LEXIS 65, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vinson-v-w-t-carter-bros-tex-1914.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack