Case ID: sw2d_88/html/0085-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

FORD RENT CO., Inc., et al. v. HUGHES, Judge, et al.
    No. 12214.
    Supreme Court of Texas.
    Nov. 20, 1935.
    Renfro, McCombs & Kilgore, William Andress, Jr., and Searcy L. Johnson, all of Dallas, for relators.
   PER CURIAM.

By their motion relators seek leave of this court to file a petition for writ of mandamus requiring and commanding Honorable Sarah T. Hughes, as district judge of the district court of Dallas county, Fourteenth judicial district of Texas, to enter judgment in their favor in cause No. 4460 — A, pending in that court, wherein E. H. Roberts is plaintiff and the relators are defendants. In the case of Dallas Railway & Terminal Company v. Honorable Royall R. Watkins et al., 86 S.W.(2d) 1081, not yet published [in State report], we declined to, grant the petitioner’s motion for leave to file an application for mandamus compelling the trial judge to proceed to judgment on the ground that such motion should have been presented in the first instance to the Court of Civil Appeals, which is clothed with full jurisdiction to grant such relief. We there announced that our policy thereafter would be to require that applications of this nature be first presented to the Court of Civil Appeals. As authority for announcing that rule, we cited Houtchens v. Mercer, 119 Tex. 244, 27 S.W.(2d) 795; Id., 119 Tex. 431, 29 S.W.(2d) 1031, 69 A. L. R. 1103.

Upon the authority of the cases above referred to, the motion for leave to file the petition for mandamus is denied, without prejudice to the relator’s right to 'proceed as outlined in the Houtchens Case, supra.