Case ID: sw_156/html/0535-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "HENDRICKS, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

FIRST NAT. BANK OF WELLINGTON v. HIX et al.
    (Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Amarillo.
    April 12, 1913.)
    Appeal and Error (§ 1127*) — Affirmance— Certificate.
    In order to have a judgment affirmed on certificate on appellee’s motion, appellee must file his certificate at the term of court to which the appeal is returnable, and a motion to affirm will be denied, where the certificate was filed at a subsequent term.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. §§ 4432-4440; Dec. Dig. § 1127.*]
    Appeal from Collingsworth County Court; R. H. Cocke, Jr., Judge.
    Action between the First National Bank of Wellington and E. M. Hix and others, in which the Bank appeals.
    On motion to affirm on certificate. Motion overruled.
    J. L. Lackey, of Wellington, and Presler & Thorne, of Memphis, for appellant. R. H. Templeton, of Wellington, for appellee.
   HENDRICKS, J.

The motion to affirm and the certificate in this matter show that the appeal bond in the above cause was filed in the lower court on the 16th of March, 1912; hence the appeal was returnable at the preceding' term of this court, and as this motion to affirm, with the certificate of the clerk, was filed at this term of this court, this matter is controlled by the decision in the case of Laughlin v. Dabney, 86 Tex. 120, 24 S. W. 259, by the Supreme Court, holding that “the appellee, or defendant in error, as the case may be, must file his certificate at the term of the court to which the appeal or writ of error is returnable.”

The motion to affirm on certificate is overruled.