Williams v. Wray

Texas Supreme Court

Williams v. Wray

72 S.W.2d 577, 123 Tex. 466, 1934 Tex. LEXIS 220

CourtTexas Supreme Court

DecidedMay 30, 1934

DocketMotion No. 11,392.

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 72 S.W.2d 577 (Williams v. Wray) 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

Williams v. Wray, 72 S.W.2d 577, 123 Tex. 466, 1934 Tex. LEXIS 220 (Tex. 1934).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Chief Justice CURETON

delivered the opinion of the Court.

On May 26, 1934, Mrs. Janie L. Williams, as relator, filed a motion for leave to file a petition for mandamus against Hon. Walter L. Wray, Judge of the 66th Judicial District. The mandamus is sought for the purpose of requiring Judge Wray to proceed with the trial of Cause No. 16,313, pending in his Court, in which the relator here is plaintiff and S. R. Raby and A. G. Raby are defendants. Said defendants are not made parties to the petition for mandamus. They are adverse claimants whose rights would be affected by a mandamus directing Judge Wray to proceed to trial. They are obviously necessary parties to this proceeding, and because they have not been made parties the motion for leave to file must be denied. 28 Texas Jurisprudence, p. 627, sec. 62; p. 629, sec. 63; Cullem v. Latimer, 4 Texas, 329; Chappell v. Rogan, 94 Texas, 492; Fain v. McCain, 199 S. W., 889 (writ refused); O’Keefe v. Robison, Comr., 116 Texas, 398, 292 S. W., 854; Scruggs v. McCart, 119 Texas, 464, 32 S. W. (2d) 823; 38 Corpus Juris, p. 853, sec. 556, and cases in the notes; State v. Thompson, 118 Tenn., 571, 102 S. W., 349; Judge Perth Co. Ct. v. Whaley, 12 U. C. C. P., 552.

The motion for leave to file is overruled without prejudice to relator’s right to make necessary parties and again present her cause in this Court.

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

Mr. Chief Justice CURETON

delivered the opinion of the Court.

On May 26, 1934, Mrs. Janie L. Williams, as relator, filed a motion for leave to file a petition for mandamus against Hon. Walter L. Wray, Judge of the 66th Judicial District. The mandamus is sought for the purpose of requiring Judge Wray to proceed with the trial of Cause No. 16,313, pending in his Court, in which the relator here is plaintiff and S. R. Raby and A. G. Raby are defendants. Said defendants are not made parties to the petition for mandamus. They are adverse claimants whose rights would be affected by a mandamus directing Judge Wray to proceed to trial. They are obviously necessary parties to this proceeding, and because they have not been made parties the motion for leave to file must be denied. 28 Texas Jurisprudence, p. 627, sec. 62; p. 629, sec. 63; Cullem v. Latimer, 4 Texas, 329; Chappell v. Rogan, 94 Texas, 492; Fain v. McCain, 199 S. W., 889 (writ refused); O’Keefe v. Robison, Comr., 116 Texas, 398, 292 S. W., 854; Scruggs v. McCart, 119 Texas, 464, 32 S. W. (2d) 823; 38 Corpus Juris, p. 853, sec. 556, and cases in the notes; State v. Thompson, 118 Tenn., 571, 102 S. W., 349; Judge Perth Co. Ct. v. Whaley, 12 U. C. C. P., 552.

The motion for leave to file is overruled without prejudice to relator’s right to make necessary parties and again present her cause in this Court.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

72 S.W.2d 577, 123 Tex. 466, 1934 Tex. LEXIS 220, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williams-v-wray-tex-1934.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack