Court Opinion

ID: 9779290
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 21:43:43.610612+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:33:24.974436
License: Public Domain

STEAKLEY, Justice
(dissenting).
State v. Nelson, 160 Tex. 515, 334 S.W. 2d 788 (1960), says as I read the opinion, that the court may condemn only the property described in the statement of condemnation if the matter goes to judgment without amendment; but that an amendment correcting a discrepancy in the description, and which does not inject entirely new subject matter or materially prejudice the landowner, may be made prior to judgment. See also Stubblefield v. State, 425 S.W.2d 699 (Tex.Civ.App. 1968, writ ref’d n.r.e.). In my view, an otherwise proper amendment may not be jurisdiction-ally accomplished in a so-called direct action in the nature of a bill of review to correct a judgment of the county court which conforms to the original and unamended statement.
DANIEL, J., joints in this dissent.