Case ID: sw_220/html/1110-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "BOYCE, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

MAJOR v. DANNELLY.
    (No. 1626.)
    (Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Amarillo.
    April 14, 1920.)
    Costs <®=¿260(6) — Where plaintiff recovered nothing below, damages for delay cannot be awarded against him on dismissal.
    Where plaintiff, who recovered nothing below, appealed, there is no basis for defendant’s request for assessment of damages for delay, under Rev. St. 1911, art. 1627, and hence, without consideration of the matter, the appellate court will grant plaintiff’s motion to dismiss the appeal.
    Appeal from Dallas County Court; W. B. Thornton, Judge.
    Action by W. W. Major and another against F. M. Dannelly. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff Major appeals.
    Appeal dismissed.
    Short & Field, of Dallas, for appellant.
    Albert Walker, of Dallas, for appellee.
   BOYCE, J.

After the appellant had filed a motion to dismiss the appeal in this case, the appellee filed his briefs, asking for an affirmance, with damages for delay. The plaintiff in the court below, appellant here, recovered nothing in the lower court. There is no basis for the assessment of damages for delay. R. S. art. 1627; Hicks v. Murphy, 162 S. W. 925. Under the circumstances it can make no material difference to appellees whether the judgment be affirmed or the appeal dismissed.

We will therefore not take the time to examine into the questions of law necessary to determine whether there was any error in the judgment, but will sustain the appellant’s motion and dismiss the appeal.