TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Hernandez v. Pastran

HERNANDEZ Et Al. v. PASTRAN

Hernandez v. Pastran, 140 S.W. 508 (Tex. App. 1911)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Court of Appeals of Texas · State Appellate Courts
Decided
November 1, 1911
Judges
Cobbs
Citations
140 S.W. 5081911 Tex. App. LEXIS 358
Disposition
Dismissed.
Headnotes
Appeal and Error (§ 773*) — Time fob Fil-ins Appellant’s Brief— Statutory Requirements. A plaintiff in error who files his brief within 20 days of the date fixed for the submission of the case does not comply with Rev. St. 1895, art. 1417, giving defendant in error 20 days after notice of the filing of the brief of plaintiff in error in which to file a brief, and the writ of error will be dismissed. [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. §§ 3104, 3108-3110; Dec. Dig. § 773.*]
Summary
Error to District Court, Bexar County; J. L. Camp, Judge. Action between Jose Angel Hernandez and another and Cornelio Pastran. There was a judgment for the latter, and the former bring error.

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

Opinion of the Court — Cobbs

COBBS, J.

The defendant in error on the 20th of October, 1911, filed a motion to dismiss the writ of error in this cause:

“(1) Because plaintiff in error failed to file a brief in the district court of Bexar county, Tex., five days prior to his filing the transcript in this, the Court of Civil Appeals.

“(2) Because plaintiff in error has never filed any brief in this, the Court of Oivil Appeals, and slaid cause is now set down for submission on November 1, 1911.

“(3) Because this cause has been set down for submission on November 1, 1911, in this court, and plaintiff in error has not filed any brief in the court below or in this court, and has never presented defendant in error with any copy of his, plaintiff in error’s brief; that defendant in error could not now prepare a brief in this cause in time for the date-of submission, and has been injured and inconvenienced by the negligence of plaintiff in error herein.”

The indorsement on the transcript in this cause by the clerk of the district court is: “Applied for by Geo. C. Altgelt and Anderson. & Belden, attys. of record for appellants, on the 31st day of October, 1910, and delivered to Anderson & Belden on the 15th day of December, 1910.” The same was filed in this court on the 20th day of February, 1911. No-answer is filed in reply to said motion, and no authorities cited in the motion to dismiss. After said motion had been filed to dismiss, plaintiffs in error on the 23d day of October, 1911, filed a copy of the brief with the district clerk, and on the same day filed their-briefs in this court Article 1417, Rev. St. 1895, requires that a. brief shall be filed with the clerk of the district court not less than five days before filing-the transcript in the Court of Civil Appeals, of which the opposite party should be notified by the clerk, and in 20 days after such notice the appellee or defendant in error shall file a copy of his brief with the clerk of said court below, and with the clerk of the Court, of Civil Appeals, four copies. As the case is-to be submitted on November 1, 1911, the 20-days in which defendant in error would have to file his brief would not have expired; hence plaintiff in error has not complied with, the statute. S. A. & A. P. Ry. Co. v. Brock, 77 S. W. 953 ; Krisch v. Richter, 125 S. W. 935 .

We believe the motion to be well taken, and the same is granted and cause dismissed.

How later courts describe this case

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

1912: 11915: 11916: 119122026peak 1912 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. American Warehouse Co. v. Hamblen146 S.W. 1006 (Tex. App. 1912)
  2. Speer v. Rushing178 S.W. 1012 (Tex. App. 1915)
  3. Harwood-Barley Mfg. Co. v. McCulloch188 S.W. 263 (Tex. App. 1916)

Most recent

  1. Harwood-Barley Mfg. Co. v. McCulloch188 S.W. 263 (Tex. App. 1916)
  2. Speer v. Rushing178 S.W. 1012 (Tex. App. 1915)
  3. American Warehouse Co. v. Hamblen146 S.W. 1006 (Tex. App. 1912)

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