Court Opinion

ID: 2921940
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-11 02:28:10.984203+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:56:34.287770
License: Public Domain

NUMBER 13-03-524-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
___________________________________________________________________

DAVID HENKE, INDIVIDUALLY AND D/B/A 
BRESLAU CATTLE COMPANY, ET AL.,                              Appellants,

v.

PEOPLE STATE BANK OF HALLETTSVILLE, 
TEXAS, ET AL.,                                                               Appellees.
___________________________________________________________________

On appeal from the 25th District Court
of Lavaca County, Texas.
___________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Hinojosa, Yañez, and Garza
Opinion Per Curiam

         Appellants, DAVID HENKE, INDIVIDUALLY AND D/B/A BRESLAU CATTLE
COMPANY, ET AL., perfected an appeal from a judgment entered by the 25th District
Court of Lavaca County, Texas, in cause number 97-08-17,960-CV.  No clerk’s record
has been filed due to appellant’s failure to pay or make arrangements to pay the clerk’s
fee for preparing the clerk’s record.  
         If the trial court clerk fails to file the clerk’s record because the appellant failed
to pay or make arrangements to pay the clerk’s fee for preparing the clerk’s record, the
appellate court may dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution unless the appellant
was entitled to proceed without payment of costs.  Tex. R. App. P. 37.3(b).
         On November 14, 2003, notice was given to all parties that this appeal was
subject to dismissal pursuant to Tex. R. App. P. 37.3(b).  Appellants were given ten
days to explain why the cause should not be dismissed.  To date, no response has
been received from appellants. 
         The Court, having examined and fully considered the documents on file,
appellants’ failure to pay or make arrangements to pay the clerk’s fee for preparing the
clerk’s record,  this Court’s notice, and appellants’ failure to respond, is of the opinion
that the appeal should be dismissed for want of prosecution. The appeal is hereby
DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION.
                                                               PER CURIAM

Opinion delivered and filed
this the 26th day of February, 2004.