Case Name: BROUSSARD et al. v. INDEMNITY INS. CO. OF NORTH AMERICA
Court: Texas Courts of Civil Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1927-10-28
Citations: 299 S.W. 506
Docket Number: No. 1580
Parties: BROUSSARD et al. v. INDEMNITY INS. CO. OF NORTH AMERICA.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 299
Pages: 506–506

Head Matter:
BROUSSARD et al. v. INDEMNITY INS. CO. OF NORTH AMERICA.
(No. 1580.)
Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Beaumont.
Oct. 28, 1927.
Rehearing Denied Nov. 9, 1927.
A. W. Dycus, of Port Arthur, for plaintiffs in error.
Morris & Barnes, of Beaumont, for defendant in error.

Opinion:
WALKER, J.
The plaintiffs filed their original petition in the district court on the 28th day of June, 1926, The defendants answered July 1, 1926. Ón the 23d day of November, 1926, the court dismissed the ease for want of prosecution. The plaintiffs in error filed no motion for new trial, but after adjournment of court appealed from the order of dismissal by writ of error. No statement of facts is before us. Hence we have nothing by which we can review plaintiffs in error's nine propositions that the dismissal was a "flagrant abuse of discretion." Inherently, a trial court has the power to dismiss a pending cause for want of prosecution. Such an order can be reviewed and reversed where the discretion vested in the court has been abused, but without a statement of facts the court's discretion cannot be brought into review. Plaintiffs in error could have preserved the facts by a motion for new trial filed in term time, or by an independent suit to set aside the verdict of dismissal filed after adjournment, but neither of these methods was followed.
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.