Court Opinion

ID: 9828504
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 18:26:53.2379+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:49.869597
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
' In an extended motion for rehearing the appellant insists that it had the right to appeal and, after a searching and persuasive review of the authorities cited by us in the original opinion, contends that we are not supported by the decisions cited. In the alternative they insist that the trial court abused its discretion to such an extent as to authorize the appeal.
We see no reason for receding from our original position, and if thq trial court has abused its discretion, appellant may probably have a remedy by mandamus ; but we do not authoritatively so hold.
R. S. art. 2002 says that all trial courts shall entertain suits in the nature of bills of discovery and grant relief therein in ac*820cordance with the usages of the courts of equity.
A bill of discovery is a preliminary proceeding, and an order granting or denying the relief is clearly interlocutory in its nature, and the general rule in Texas is that no appeal lies from an interlocutory order of any description, unless the statute expressly authorizes such an appeal. Appellant concedes that there is no express authority for an appeal from an order granting or denying the prayer in a bill of discovery.
While there are some exceptions in other jurisdictions, we still hold that by the great weight of authority, especially in states where chancery courts exercising separate equity jurisdiction exist, the rule is that no appeal will lie unless there is express statutory authority.
In 3 C. J. 496, § 329, it is said: “Unless allowed 'by statute, an appeal will not lie from orders under a statute for discovery or the examination of parties or witnesses before trial; but such orders have been held ap-pealable under statutes allowing an appeal from an order affecting a substantial right, from a final order in a special proceeding affecting a substantial right, and certain other special statutory provisions.”
Texas has no such statutes as are mentioned in the text. The writer proceeds: “And orders for the production or inspection of books and papers, except in so far as they are discretionary, are appealable under special statutory provisions in some jurisdictions, while in others they are not, but are reviewable only on appeal or error after final judgment.”
Innumerable authorities are cited in the footnotes sustaining this rule from eleven different jurisdictions, including the Supreme Court of the United States; the only exception being in West Virginia. Many of these states have separate law' and equity courts.
In 9 R. C. L. 188, § 33, it is said: “An order granting or refusing to require the production of books and papers is regarded as a mere interlocutory order and for that reason not the subject of a separate appeal unless an appeal in such a case is permitted by statute.”
Reference to the authorities cited in the footnotes sustains the rule announced in the text. The citation further proceeds: “Such an order is reviewable after final judgment as an intermediate order involving the merits and can not be taken up under a writ of review where the statute authorizes such right only where no appeal is provided.”
While we believe that it is a subject for legislative determination and that the right of appeal in such cases should be provided by statute, until that is done no right of appeal exists.
The motion is overruled.