TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Merkel v. Garrett

Henrietta Merkel Et Al. v. H. L. Garrett, Clerk, Court of Civil Appeals, 1st District

Merkel v. Garrett, 121 S.W. 256 (Tex. App. 1910)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals of Texas · State Appellate Courts
Decided
May 31, 1910
Judges
Per Curiam. —
Citations
121 S.W. 25661 Tex. Civ. App. 3531910 Tex. App. LEXIS 758
Headnotes
Appeal — Filing Bond — Time. When the term of the court in which a ease is tried might by law continue in session more than eight weeks and the appellant is a resident of the county, in order to perfect the appeal the appeal bond must be filed within twenty days after notice of appeal is given.

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

Opinion of the Court — Per Curiam

Per Curiam.

— In this case relators seek by writ of mandamus to compel the clerk of this court to file in this court the record on appeal in the case of Henrietta Merkel et al., v. Houston, Oak Lawn and Magnolia Park Eailroad Company, which the cleric has refused to file on the ground that the appeal has not been perfected so as to give this court jurisdiction.

The case was tried at a term of the District Court of Harris County, which by law might continue in session more than eight weeks. Motion for a new trial was overruled and notice of appeal given February 3, 1910. The appeal bond was filed February 34, 1910. The statute (Art. 1387, Rev. Stats.) clearly provides that if the court in which the case is tried may by law continue more than eight weeks, in order to perfect the appeal the appeal bond must be filed within twenty days after notice of appeal is given, unless the appellant resides out of the county, which is not claimed to be the case here. The language of the statute is so plain as to leave no room for doubt as to its meaning. The 'appeal bond was not filed in time, and the clerk acted properly in refusing to file the record. The writ of mandamus is refused.

Mandamus Refused.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1910: 11911: 11913: 11914: 21915: 11922: 11963: 119102026peak 1914 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. American Rio Grande Land & Irrigation Co. v. Karle237 S.W. 358 (Tex. App. 1922)
  2. Galveston, H. & S. A. Ry. Co. v. J. H. Nations Meat & Supply Co.136 S.W. 833 (Tex. App. 1911)
  3. Morgan's L. & T. R. & S. S. v. Railroad Commission53 So. 890 (La. 1910)
  4. Brunner v. Mobile-Gulfport Lumber Co.66 So. 438 (Ala. 1914)
  5. Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Langbehn158 S.W. 244 (Tex. App. 1913)
  6. Quanah, A. & P. Ry. Co. v. R. D. Jones Lumber Co.178 S.W. 858 (Tex. App. 1915)

Most recent

  1. Railroad Commission v. Oil Field Haulers Ass'n369 S.W.2d 931 (Tex. App. 1963)
  2. American Rio Grande Land & Irrigation Co. v. Karle237 S.W. 358 (Tex. App. 1922)
  3. Quanah, A. & P. Ry. Co. v. R. D. Jones Lumber Co.178 S.W. 858 (Tex. App. 1915)
  4. Brunner v. Mobile-Gulfport Lumber Co.66 So. 438 (Ala. 1914)
  5. Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. State167 S.W. 192 (Tex. App. 1914)
  6. Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Langbehn158 S.W. 244 (Tex. App. 1913)

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.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list