Padgitt v. Young County

I. B. Padgitt Et Al. v. Young County Et Al.

Padgitt v. Young Cnty., 229 S.W. 459 (Tex. 1921)

Court: Texas Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided: March 23, 1921
Docket: No. 3256.
Judges: Phillips
Citations: 229 S.W. 459111 Tex. 981921 Tex. LEXIS 65

Cited by 12 1 descriptions by later courts

Headnotes

Practice in Supreme Court — Judgment—Payment—Moot Case. Where it is shown to the Supreme Court that the judgment sought to be reviewed Has been paid off and discharged, though not by the plaintiffs in error complaining of it, the case becomes a moot one and will not be determined, but the writ of error will be dismissed. (P. 98).

Summary

Error to the Court of Civil Appeals for the Second District, in an appeal from Clay County. Padgitt and others obtained writ of error on the affirmance on their appeal (204 S. W., 1046) of a judgment recovered against them by Young County.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Phillips

Mb. Chief Justice PHILLIPS delivered the opinion of the court.

This case is withdrawn from the Commission of Appeals.

It appearing that the judgment against the plaintiffs in error which is sought to be here reviewed has been paid and satisfied and the liability of the plaintiffs in error extinguished, we can see no reason for continuing the case here and determining the questions presented, as the plaintiffs in error insist. While the payment of the judgment seems not to have been made by the plaintiffs in error themselves, but by a stranger to the record out of whose transactions the suit arose, yet it is not controverted that the payment made has been accepted by Young County, the judgment creditor. This precludes any further assertion by Young County of the liability of the plaintiffs in error. Young County has by motion here advised us of such payment and expressly recognizes the satisfaction of the judgment. The case has therefore become moot, and the writ of error is ordered dismissed.

How later courts describe this case

Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 1 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.

(determining that appeal became moot when amount of judgment was paid by third party and accepted by judgment creditor)

Norton, III v. Cheney, No. 03-14-00087-CV (Tex. App.—Austin Aug. 14, 2015)

Cited by 12 cases

View all citing references →

Relies on it most ⓘ

Continental Casualty Co. v. Huizar740 S.W.2d 429 (Tex. 1987)
Employees Finance Company v. Lathram369 S.W.2d 927 (Tex. 1963)
City of Mesquite v. Rawlins399 S.W.2d 162 (Tex. App. 1966)
Richmond v. Hog Creek Oil Co.239 S.W. 904 (Tex. Comm'n App. 1922)
Connell v. BL McFarland Drilling Contractor347 S.W.2d 565 (Tex. 1961)
Cullen v. Ellis County Levee Improvement Dist. No. 377 S.W.2d 310 (Tex. App. 1934)

Most recent

Edwin Kiest Norton III v. Mary Michelle CheneyNo. 03-14-00087-CV (Tex. App.—Austin Aug. 14, 2015)
Continental Casualty Co. v. Huizar740 S.W.2d 429 (Tex. 1987)
Stephens v. Decker433 S.W.2d 28 (Tex. App. 1968)
City of Mesquite v. Rawlins399 S.W.2d 162 (Tex. App. 1966)
Employees Finance Company v. Lathram369 S.W.2d 927 (Tex. 1963)
Connell v. BL McFarland Drilling Contractor347 S.W.2d 565 (Tex. 1961)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

`/`	Focus the search box
`j` `k`	Next / previous result
`Enter`	Open the selected result
`x`	Add / remove the selected result from the download list
`n` `p`	Next / previous search term in a case
`c`	Copy the citation of the current case
`+` `−`	Larger / smaller reading text
`?`	Show this list