Court Opinion

ID: 9830665
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 20:22:13.820883+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:25.369130
License: Public Domain

BUCK, J.
[1] This is the second appeal of this case, the opinion on the first appeal being found in 193 S. W. 168. Upon this appeal we are confronted with a question as to our jurisdiction. The judgment in the trial court was rendered October 18,1917, the judgment overruling the motion for new trial was rendered December 31, 1917. The petition for writ of error was filed in the court below December 16, 1918, the bond being filed the same day. We conclude that the petition for writ of error came too late. In estimating the time, 12 months, within which the writ of error should he sued out, the period should commence with the date of the judgment, and not with the date of the overruling of the motion for new trial. Vernon’s Sayles’ Civil Statutes, art. 2086; Cooper v. Yoakum, 91 Tex. 391, 43 S. W. 871; Evans v. San Antonio Traction Co., 166 S. W. 408; Kolp v. Shrader, 168 S. W. 464; Ry. Co. v. Stapp, 171 S. W. 1080.
It therefore becomes our duty to dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction; and it is so ordered.

c®=>For other oases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes