Case Name: QUANAH, A. & P. RY. CO. et al. v. WATKINS
Court: Texas Courts of Civil Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1916-12-13
Citations: 193 S.W. 356
Docket Number: No. 1120
Parties: QUANAH, A. & P. RY. CO. et al. v. WATKINS.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 193
Pages: 356–357

Head Matter:
QUANAH, A. & P. RY. CO. et al. v. WATKINS.
(No. 1120.)
(Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Amarillo.
Dec. 13, 1916.
On the Merits, Eéb. 21, 1917.)
1. Appeal and Error &wkey;>628(2) — Piling Transcript — Permission op Appellate Court.
Permission is reluctantly granted to file a transcript presented three days late, where appellants’ uncontroverted affidavits showed repeated requests were made of the clerk below to prepare it promptly and he promised to do so, but failed..
[Ed. Note. — Por other cases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. §§ 2751-2755.]
On the Merits.
2. Damages &wkey;148 — Attorney’s Pees — Pleading.
", Allegations that plaintiff promised his attorney a certain fee are insufficient to authorize a recovery under Rev. St. art. 2178, allowing reasonable attorney fees to be taxed in certain cases where claims are not paid within 30 days.
' [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Damages, Cent. Dig. §§ 410, 412.]
3. Justices op the Peace <&wkey;100(l)' — Appeals— Sufficiency op Pleadings.
While technical rules of pleading do not apply on appeals from a justice court, yet where plaintiff states the issues, he is confined to his pleadings.
[Ed. Note. — Por other cases, see Justices of the Peace, Cent. Dig. §§ 336-340.]
Appeal from Motley County Court; O. B. Whitten, Judge.
Action by W. D. Watkins against the Qua-nah, Acme & Pacific Railway Company and another. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal.
Affirmed upon condition.
D. E. Decker,-of Quanah, and <5. E.. Hamilton, of Matador, for appellants. A. B. Crane and T. T. Bouldin, both- of Matador, for appellee.

Opinion:
HALL, J.
Appellant moves the court for permission to file the transcript, which reached the clerk of this court 3 days after the expiration of the statutory time for filing it here.. The uncontroverted affidavit of the attorneys for appellant shows that they repeatedly, during the 90 days requested R. A. Seay, clerk of the county court of Motley county, to prepare the transcript, and that he promised them faithfully every time to. comply with their request, and utterly failed to do so. We doubt the propriety of granting this motion, since it appears that this is the same clerk whose dereliction was considered in the case of Q., A. & P. Ry. Co. v. Leckie, 176 S. W. 662, and appellants were forcibly reminded in that case that they could not depend upon his promises: If appellant had applied for a mandamus, stating the facts set up in this motion, this court would have granted the relief. The granting of this motion must not be taken as a precedent, especially in cases where attorneys know from experience, that the clerk of the trial court is habitually negligent in the performance of his duties.
The motion is reluctantly granted.
other oases see same topic ana KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexea