Case Name: Mills v. Gooding
Court: Supreme Court of Texas
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1852
Citations: 8 Tex. 152
Docket Number: 
Parties: Mills v. Gooding.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Reports
Volume: 8
Pages: 76–77

Head Matter:
Mills v. Gooding.
Where the plaintiff in error fails to have the transcript sent up to the term to which the writ of error is returnable, the defendant in error, if he desires to have the judgment affirmed, should, file the transcript during that term and move the court accordingly; the transcript cannot be properly filed after the expiration of the term to which the writ of error returnable.
Error from Reel River. Judgment remlei*eel November 13th, 1843. Writ of error prayecl April 25th, 1349; citation served next day. The plaintiff-in. error failed to have the writ of error returned to the December Term, 1849, and the defendant in error filed tiie record at the present term and moved the court to affirm the judgment.
/S'. II. Pirkeij, for plaintiff in error.
W. Trimble, for defendant in error.

Opinion:
Lipscomb, J.
The writ of error ought to have been returned by the plain-tiffin error to the term succeeding' after it was prayed, and on failure the defendant could then have filed the record and aslced its affirmance, but could not at a subsequent term. It must be refused and the cause dismissed at the cost of the party filing the record. Note. — This same question was presented and decided at Austin, December Term, 1849, in a case from Galveston, wlien John B. Jones, esq., attorney for the defendant in error, asked the affirmance of a judgment under similar circumstances, and his motion was overruled by the court. There was no opinion written out and filed, I believe, by the court.
Motion overruled.