Court Opinion

ID: 9831005
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 20:41:50.218246+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:29.234668
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
[4] There was no brief filed in this court by appellee Our attention, for the first time, has been called by motion for rehearing to the fact that the certificate to the-transcript was made by appellee, who was. and is the clerk of the district court from which this appeal was taken. There was no clerk pro tern, appointed to act in the-case, and all the papers filed in the matter were-filed by appellee, who is the only party defendant In a proceeding where the clerk of the district court is a party to a cause, it is provided by the Statutes (article 1687, R. S. 1911 [article 1080, R. S. 1895]) that a clerk pro tern, shall be appointed by the district judge “for the purposes of such suit, motion or proceedings.” This statute disqualified the appellee from acting in this, case; therefore there is nothing before us. which we can properly consider on appeal, and the motion for rehearing will be granted, and the cause dismissed. Womack v. Stokes, 9 Tex. Civ. App. 592, 29 S. W. 1113; Lewis v. Hutchinson, 4 Willson, Civ. Cas. Ct. App. § 79, 16 S. W. 654.
Motion for rehearing granted.