TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Burger v. Young

J. A. Burger v. W. H. Young

Burger v. Young, 15 S.W. 107 (Tex. 1890)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Texas Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
November 25, 1890
Docket
No. 3216
Judges
Henry
Citations
15 S.W. 10778 Tex. 6561890 Tex. LEXIS 1464
Headnotes
Judgment upon Failure of Plaintiff to Prosecute. — In an action in trespass to try title against several defendants, some of whom answered hut none asking affirmative relief, upon the plaintiff refusing to proceed with the trial when his application for a continuance had been overruled, the only judgment proper was to dismiss the case for want of prosecution. It was error to enter judgment in favor of the defendants upon the merits.
Summary
Appeal from Navarro. Tried below before Hon. Rufus Hardy.

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

Opinion of the Court — Henry

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

HENRY, Associate Justice.

— This suit was brought by appellant against several defendants to try title and for partition.

The plaintiff filed an amended original petition, in which the name of one of the defendants, who was never cited to appear, was omitted.

When the cause was called for trial all of the defendants except one had filed answers. None of the defendants sought by their pleadings affirmative relief.

When the cause was called for trial the plaintiff presented without objection a verbal motion for a continuance, which was overruled. Plaintiff then asked for time to put in writing his application for a continuance, which was refused. Plaintiff’s counsel then took a judgment by default against the defendant who had failed to answer, but refused to read his pleadings or introduce any evidence as to the other defendants. The court thereupon rendered a judgment upon the merits in favor of all of the defendents who had answered.

The refusal of plaintiff’s attorney to read his pleadings or to offer any evidence was in effect an abandonment of the prosecution of his cause. *657 „ It was as much so as an entire failure to appear would have been. In that state of the case the only order that the court could have properly made was one dismissing his cause for want of prosecution as to the defendants who appeared.

For the error of the court in rendering judgment upon the merits in favor of such defendants instead of dismissing the cause as to them for want of prosecution, the judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

Delivered November 25, 1890.

How later courts describe this case

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

Cited by 35 cases

View all citing references →
1909: 11911: 11913: 11919: 21920: 21921: 21922: 11923: 21930: 31932: 11933: 11934: 11937: 11939: 11940: 11941: 21946: 11948: 11959: 11972: 11981: 11982: 11990: 11991: 12000: 22001: 12015: 119092026peak 1930 · 3

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Slaughter v. Clement64 S.W.3d 448 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2001)
  2. Baker v. Arnett106 S.W.2d 849 (Tex. App. 1937)
  3. Freeman v. Freeman327 S.W.2d 428 (Tex. 1959)
  4. Smock v. Fischel207 S.W.2d 891 (Tex. 1948)
  5. Ware v. Jones242 S.W. 1022 (Tex. Comm'n App. 1922)
  6. Alvarado v. Magic Valley Electric Co-Op, Inc.784 S.W.2d 729 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1990)

Most recent

  1. in the Interest of J. A., Jr., a Minor Child482 S.W.3d 141 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2015)
  2. Slaughter v. Clement64 S.W.3d 448 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2001)
  3. State v. Herrera25 S.W.3d 326 (Tex. App.—Austin 2000)
  4. State of Texas, Cities of San Antonio and Balcones Heights, Texas And Transit Authority of San Antonio v. Arthur L. Herrera, Jr., D/B/A Nicole's Diamond CreationsNo. 03-99-00807-CV (Tex. App.—Austin July 27, 2000)
  5. Miller v. Kossey802 S.W.2d 873 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 1991)
  6. Alvarado v. Magic Valley Electric Co-Op, Inc.784 S.W.2d 729 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1990)

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