TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Perry v. Greer

M. G. Perry Et Al. v. R. H. Greer

Perry v. Greer, 221 S.W. 931 (Tex. 1920)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Texas Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
May 12, 1920
Docket
No. 2792.
Judges
Phillips
Citations
221 S.W. 931110 Tex. 5491920 Tex. LEXIS 116
Headnotes
1. —Certified Question. In cases where the decision of the Court of Civil Appeals is final the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction of a certificate of dissent; but the court may in such cases certify a question because deemed by it advisible, or because of conflict with other Courts of Civil Appeals. (P. 550). 2. —Procedure—County—Court—Appeal from Justice Court. Where a case in the County Court was within the jurisdiction of a Justice Court and the record indicated that it had been first tried therein, but contained no transcript of the proceedings there had, the proper order ’ by the Court of Civil Appeals was, not to dismiss the appeal, but to reverse the judgment and remand to the County Court with direction to dismiss unless its jurisdiction was properly made to appear. (Pp. 549, 550).
Summary
Question certified from the Court of Civil Appeals for the Second District, in an appeal from the County Court of Denton 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

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

The appeal to the honorable Court of Civil Appeals for the Second District was from a judgment rendered in the County Court upon a demand within the jurisdiction of the Justice Court. There were indications in the record that the ease had been first tried in the Justice Court, but there was omitted from the record any transcript of the proceedings in that court. On the submission in *550 the Court of Civil Appeals this omission was called to the attention of counsel, but no effort was made by either party to supply it up to the time of the decision. Because of this condition a majority of the Court of Civil Appeals held that the judgment of the County Court should be reversed and the case remanded to that court with instructions to dismiss unless its jurisdiction was there legally shown. One of the Justices dissented from this holding, being of the view that instead of the court’s ordering a reversal of the judgment and remanding of the cause, the appeal should be dismissed.

The case is one of which the jurisdiction of the Court of Civil Appeals, under article 1591, is final.

A motion to certify the question of the correctness of the court’s judgment was made, both upon the ground of the dissent and conflict between the holding of the majority with that of other Courts of Civil Appeals. This motion was granted, upon both grounds as we interpret the certificate • and the question is here accordingly.

We are asked to determine (1) whether the Court of Civil Appeals erred in granting the motion to certify; and (2), if there was no error in granting the motion, whether the judgment of the County Court should have been reversed and the cause remanded, or the appeal dismissed.

In cases where the decision of the Court of Civil Appeals is final, we have no jurisdiction of a certificate of dissent. (Herf v. James, 86 Texas, 230 , 24 S. W., 396 ; Kidd v. Rainey, 9 Texas, 556 , 68 S. W., 507 ; but the court may in such cases certify a question because deemed by it advisable, or because of conflict with decisions of other Courts of Civil Appeals. Wallis v. Stuart, 92 Texas, 568 , 50 S. W., 67 ; McCurdy & Daniels v. Conner, 95 Texas, 246 , 66 S. W., 664 .

The proper order was to reverse the judgment and remand the ease to the County Court with the direction to dismiss it unless its jurisdiction was properly made to appear. Pecos & North Texas Railway Company v. Canyon Coal Company, 102 Texas, 478 . The expressions used in Wells v. Driskell, 105 Texas, 77 , with respect to “dismissing” the case were not intended to overrule the express holding in Pecos & North Texas Railway Company v. Canyon Coal Company.

How later courts describe this case

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

Cited by 23 cases

View all citing references →
1922: 21925: 31926: 11929: 31930: 11931: 11939: 21940: 21941: 11942: 11944: 11946: 11985: 11994: 12018: 12022: 119222026peak 1925 · 3

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Headstream v. Mangum149 S.W.2d 625 (Tex. App. 1941)
  2. Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. Gorman245 S.W. 418 (Tex. 1922)
  3. City of Garland v. Louton691 S.W.2d 603 (Tex. 1985)
  4. Simpson v. McDonald179 S.W.2d 239 (Tex. 1944)
  5. Patterson Produce Co. v. Tombs14 S.W.2d 959 (Tex. App. 1929)
  6. Indian Territory Illuminating Oil Co. v. Rainwater140 S.W.2d 491 (Tex. App. 1940)

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 8

DepthCaseCited by
Herf & Dittmar v. James, 24 S.W. 396 (Tex. 1893) 17
McCurdy Daniels v. Conner, 66 S.W. 664 (Tex. 1902) 16
Pecos & North Tex. Ry. Co. v. Canyon Coal Co., 119 S.W. 294 (Tex. 1909) 79
Wallis, Landes & Co. v. Stuart, 50 S.W. 567 (Tex. 1899) 47
Wells v. Driskell, 145 S.W. 333 (Tex. 1912) 43
Kidd v. Rainey, 68 S.W. 507 (Tex. 1902) 12
Gleason v. Barnett, 50 S.W. 67 (Ky. Ct. App. 1899) 9
Bissell v. Haynes, 9 Tex. 556 (1853) 6

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