Case Name: NOBLE et al. v. BROAD
Court: Texas Courts of Civil Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1915-02-03
Citations: 173 S.W. 643
Docket Number: No. 5335
Parties: NOBLE et al. v. BROAD.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 173
Pages: 643–644

Head Matter:
NOBLE et al. v. BROAD.
(No. 5335.)
(Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Austin.
Feb. 3, 1915.)
Courts <&wkey;>247 — Jurisdiction of Court of Civil Appeals — Certification of Questions to Supreme Court.
The Court of Civil Appeals has no jurisdiction to certify questions to the Supreme Court after the expiration of the term at which the case was finally disposed of by overruling a motion for rehearing, though there was a dissenting opinion.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Courts, Cent. Dig. §§ 487, 749, 751-754, 757, 759, 760, 762-764; Dec. Dig. &wkey;247.] -
Appeal from Coleman County Court; F. M. Bowen, Judge.
Action between P. B. Noble and another and William Broad. There was a judgment for the latter, and the former appealed to the Court of Civil Appeals, which reversed the judgment, with instructions. Thereafter the former filed a motion to certify questions to the Supreme Court.
Motion overruled for want of jurisdiction.
Snodgrass, Dibrell & Snodgrass, of Coleman, for the motion.

Opinion:
Opinion on Motion to Certify.
RICE, J.
On April 15, 1914, during the last term of this court, this case was reversed, with instructions (167 S. W. 1), in which, however, Mr. Justice Jenkins dissented. Thereafter a motion for rehearing was duly made and filed, which was overruled on the 13th of May, 1914, from which appellee sued out a writ of error to the Supreme Court, which was, on the 18th of November, 1914, dismissed by that court for want of jurisdiction. Thereafter, on the 31st of December, 1914, appellee filed his motion to certify the questions therein involved to the Supreme Court.
The case having been finally disposed of in this court by overruling the motion for rehearing, and the term at which this was done having expired, we no longer have jurisdic tion over it, for which reason it becomes our duty (notwithstanding the fact that there was a dissenting opinion, which ordinarily would entitle the party to the certificate) to overrule said motion; and it is so ordered.
The motion is therefore overruled for want of jurisdiction.
other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes