Case ID: sw_294/html/0660-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "HICKMAN, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

BLAIR & HUGHES CO. v. NAUMOVICH.
    (No. 305.)
    Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Eastland.
    April 29, 1927.
    Appeal and error &wkey;»500(l) — There was nothing for review where record did not show ruling on motion to reinstate case dismissed for want of prosecution.
    Where plaintiff filed motion to set aside order dismissing case for want of prosecution and for reinstatement thereof on docket, but transcript showed no ruling on motion hut showed order overruling defendant’s motion for new trial, defendant’s exception thereto, and notice of appeal, held that record presented nothing for review on writ of error by plaintiff; appellate court being bound by record presented to it.
    Error from Dallas County Court; Wm. M. Cramer, Judge.
    Action by Blair & Hughes Company against Pero Naumovich. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff brings error.
    Affirmed.
    Stennis & Stennis, of Dallas, for plaintiff in error.
    Whitehurst & Whitehurst, of Dallas, for defendant in error.
   HICKMAN, J.

The plaintiff in error was the plaintiff below, and the defendant in error was the defendant below. On February 25, 1925, the court entered an order dismissing the case for want of prosecution. On the next day plaintiff filed a motion to set aside the order dismissing the case for want of prosecution and reinstate it upon the docket. The motion sets up strong grounds for setting aside the order of dismissal, but there is no order of the court on the motion shown in the transcript. This court is advised of the action of the trial court on this motion by a bill of exceptions only. There is an order in the transcript overruling defendant’s motion for new trial, which shows that defendant excepted and gave notice of appeal. This order is the one referred to by plaintiff in error in its brief filed in this cause as the order overruling its motion.

It may be that a mistake was made in the record and that the original order was on plaintiff’s motion, as the record discloses that defendant had no motion pending, but we are bound by the record as it comes to us. It presents no question for our determination, and the judgment of the trial court will therefore be affirmed.