Case Name: Fred Henningsmeyer v. First State Bank of Conroe
Court: Supreme Court of Texas
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1918-03-06
Citations: 109 Tex. 116
Docket Number: Application No. 10370
Parties: Fred Henningsmeyer v. First State Bank of Conroe.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Reports
Volume: 109
Pages: 116–123

Head Matter:
Fred Henningsmeyer v. First State Bank of Conroe.
Application No. 10370.
Decided March 6, 1918.
Writ of Error—Practice in Supreme Court—Jurisdiction—Time—Motion for Rehearing.
Article 1541, Revised Statutes, is imperative in requiring that application for writ of error be made within thirty days from the overruling of motion for rehearing. The record here disclosing that an order of the Court of Civil Appeals, made on a second and identical motion setting aside the order overruling the first one and again overruling the motion, was for the purpose of enabling the defeated party, who had no notice of the first overruling order until the expiration of thirty days thereafter, to obtain revision of the judgment by the Supreme Court on writ of error, it is held that its lost jurisdiction could not' be so restored, and the application for writ of error is dismissed. Mr. Justice Hawkins dissents. (Pp. 116, 117.)
Application for writ of error to the Court of Civil Appeals for the Ninth District, in an appeal from Montgomery County.
Howard Bennette, W. N. Foster, and G. P. Dougherty, for applicant, plaintiff in error, cited: McGhee v. Romatka, 93 Texas, 341; Sams v. Creager, 85 Texas, 498.
A. L. and Paul Kayser, for defendant in error, cited: Rev. Stats., art. 1541; Court Rule No. 65; Vinson v. Carter & Bro., 106 Texas, 273; Sams v. Creager, 85 Texas, 497.

Opinion:
Mr. Chief Justice PHILLIPS
delivered the opinion of the court.
The judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals was .adverse to the plaintiffs in error. Their motion for rehearing was overruled on February 14, 1917. Their counsel, it appears, did not learn of the overruling of the motion until the lapse of more than thirty days after the date of the court's order. They then filed, on April 3,1917, an amended motion for rehearing, an exact copy of the original, adding only a statement as to the failure of the clerk to give them notice of the court's action on the motion, and their want of knowledge of its action until more than, thirty days had elapsed. The prayer was for a rehearing, but, if that were not granted, that the former order be set aside, "in order that the right of appellants to have the judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals reviewed by petition for writ of error might be preserved." On April 11, 1917, the Court of Civil Appeals by the same order, set aside its order overruling the original motion and overruled the amended motion. The petition for writ of error was filed in the Court of Civil Appeals on May 10, 1917.
We think the motion to dismiss should be granted. In order for this court to have jurisdiction upon petition for writ of error it is required, as a condition precedent, that the petition be filed with the clerk of the Court of Civil Appeals within thirty days from the overruling of the motion for rehearing in that court. Schleicher v. Runge, 90 Texas, 456. The statute on the subject (article 1541) is imperative, and must he complied with. If merely to have additional time for the filing of the petition for writ of error successive motions for rehearing may be filed, the statute is rendered of no effect.
There is nothing in this record which even remotely suggests that the order that set aside the former order, overruling the original motion, and overruled the amended motion, was for any other purpose than to permit the filing of the petition for writ of error as within the-time) required by law, in accordance with the appellants' request. We do not think that fact could be ascertained any more certainly than it here appears. "Under such circumstances we regard it as our duty to treat the time of the overruling of the original motion as the date from which should be reckoned the thirty days allowed for the filing of the petition for writ of error.
We wish to add that we do not question the authority of the Court of Civil Appeals to set aside its former order, or to make, after its original action in a case, any further orders it might deem proper. It has full control of its judgments during its term. Nor have we any purpose to in anywise cast a doubt upon the good faith of its action. To relieve a seeming hardship it doubtless felt constrained to grant the appellants' request.
We simply riile that under the circumstances stated we do not consider its action as binding upon us; and that, to give effect to the statute, our duty, under such circumstances, is to require, as essential to our jurisdiction, that the petition for writ of error be filed within thirty days from the overruling of the original motion for rehearing.
It was not filed within that time, and the motion to dismiss is accordingly granted.
Opinion delivered June .30, 1917.
Associate Justice Hawkins dissents