Case Title: Crow v. Batchelor

Citation: 453 S.W.2d 297

Docket Number: B-1883

State: texas

Court: Texas Supreme Court

Date: 1970-03-04T00:00:00Z

Document:
453 S.W.2d 297 (1970) James C. CROW, Petitioner, v. Eugene D. BATCHELOR et ux., Respondents. No. B-1883. Supreme Court of Texas. March 4, 1970. Harkness, Friedman & Kusin, B. A. Britt, Jr., Texarkana, for petitioner. Guy E. Jones, Texarkana, for respondents. PER CURIAM. This is an appeal from an order granting a temporary injunction. The Court of Civil Appeals observed that neither the original appeal bond nor an amended bond filed by appellant complies with the Rules of Civil Procedure. It apparently concluded that the bond is subject to further amendment under the provisions of Rule 430, but the appeal was dismissed because appellant had not given notice of appeal. 451 S.W.2d 793. The procedure for taking an appeal from an interlocutory order is prescribed by Rule 385, which does not require notice of appeal. It is for this reason *298 that notice is not required in an appeal from an interlocutory order. See Rex Refining Co. v. Morris, Tex.Civ.App., 72 S.W.2d 687 (no writ); City of Fort Worth v. First Baptist Church of Fort Worth, Tex.Civ.App., 268 S.W. 1016 (no writ); McDonald, Texas Civil Practice § 18.31, p. 1505. In Beversdorf v. Dienger, 107 Tex. 88, 174 S.W. 576, it was pointed out that: Under the provisions of Rule 483, the judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals is reversed and the cause is remanded to that court for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion. It is further ordered that the opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals be published.