Case Name: PINKSTON v. OGDEN
Court: Texas Courts of Civil Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1945-11-08
Citations: 191 S.W.2d 114
Docket Number: No. 4433
Parties: PINKSTON v. OGDEN.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter Second Series
Volume: 191
Pages: 114–117

Head Matter:
PINKSTON v. OGDEN.
No. 4433.
Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. El Paso.
Nov. 8, 1945.
J. H. McBroom, of El Paso, and Jack Pinkston, in pro. per., of Dallas, for appellant.
No brief filed for appellee.

Opinion:
PRICE, Chief Justice.
This is a motion by Jack Pinkston for leave to file application for mandamus against Charles Roberts as Judge of the County Court of Andrews County and Sam Smith, County Clerk of said County. Pat Beene and O. O. Ogden are likewise named as respondents. Pinkston seeks to have a statement of facts approved to the end he may file same as part of the record on appeal.
Pinkston was defendant with others in a suit by O. O. Ogden filed in the County Court of Andrews County seeking to enjoin the enforcement of a judgment of the Justice of the Peace of Dallas County, Precinct No. 7, and of another judgment of said court in a garnishment proceeding based on the aforementioned judgment of the Justice's Court. The judgments against which such relief was sought were in a sum of less than $200. On presentation of the petition, the Judge of the County Court of Andrews County granted a temporary restraining order restraining the enforcement of the Dallas County judgments and set May 5, 1945, for hearing as to the temporary injunction.
Pinkston on May 4, 1945, filed a motion to dismiss Ogden's suit on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the trial court. On the same date, he filed a plea of privilege in due form alleging his residence as Dallas County. On May 8, 1945, Ogden filed controverting affidavit to the plea of' privilege.
On May 5, 1945, the court entered an order overruling Pinkston's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. On May 21, 1945, an order was entered overruling Pinkston's plea of privilege. Pinkston did not appear at this hearing and on the same date the court entered a final judgment in the cause perpetually enjoining Pinkston, the Dallas Justice of the Peace, and his successors in office and the Sheriff of Andrews County from seeking to enforce the Dallas judgment. Pinkston did not appear in person or by attorney at this trial. On May 26, 1945, Pinkston filed notice of appeal to this court from the order of May 21, 1945, overruling his plea of privilege and continuing the temporary restraining order or temporary injunction in effect. On May 25, 1945, Pinkston filed his appeal bond herein. This bond describes the order appealed from as rendered May 5, 1945, and as overruling the motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and to dismiss the temporary restraining order or temporary injunction. The record, as heretofore recited, is shown by transcript filed in this court May 31, 1945, and the supplemental transcript filed June 10, 1945. These filings were by leave of this court.
On four separate. occasions Pinkston in due time has filed in this court application for an extension of time within which to file his statement of facts, each of which applications were granted by this court. Rule 377, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure governs here. There is not shown that a tender of the statement of facts as prepared by Pinkston has ever been made to the County Judge to the end that he either approve same or make same conform to the truth as provided in Section (d) of the said Rule. It is not shown that a copy of the proposed statement of facts prepared by Pinkston has ever been furnished to respondent Beene, the attorney of record for Ogden. It is shown, however, that what seems to have been intended as the original was shown to him and he refused to agree to same. The County Clerk has not so far as is shown by the motion and application refused to perform in the premises any legal duty owing Pinkston. There has been a rather patient effort to obtain a statement of facts, but there has not been such a substantial compliance with the governing rule as wo.uld justify us in awarding the writ of mandamus sought. If, however, it were thought Pinkston would be in any substantial way handicapped- in the presentation of his appeal, we would again extend the time for filing of the statement of facts to the end that he might take proper steps to comply with the rule in question. Even though the judgment entered be void on its face, this should not deprive one of the right to a statement of facts on appeal, but to obtain same, compliance with the applicable Rule must be shown.
There has been an appeal bond of a sort filed here. It is perhaps our duty to exercise jurisdiction. Grogan Manufacturing Co. v. Lane, 146 Tex. 507, 169 S.W.2d 141.
No place in the record is it shown a temporary injunction was granted. In the order of May 5, 1945, there is a reference to continuing the temporary injunction in effect until the plea of privilege had been heard. This reference is, we think, to the temporary restraining order. If there had been a temporary injunction granted, the. question is now perhaps moot for the reason that final judgment has been entered in the case; and permanent injunction rather than temporary injunction has been awarded. However, the serious question presented by the appeal is whether or not the County Court had power to enter any other judgment than one of dismissal for lack of jurisdiction. The determination of this question does not depend upon the filing of a statement of facts.
It is ordered that leave to file application be denied.