Court Opinion

ID: 9827181
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 17:15:44.778391+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:25.739660
License: Public Domain

On Motions for Rehearing and to Dismiss Appeal.
Appellees have filed herein a motion for rehearing and in addition thereto a motion to dismiss this appeal. This cause was tried at the March term, 1924, of the district court of Hill county. The judgment appealed from was rendered March 20, 1924. Notice of appeal was given at that time. That term of said court adjourned April 19, 1924. Appellant filed his appeal bond May 16, 1924. The sta’tute fixing the terms of the district court of Hill county which was in force at the time •provides that a term shall begin on the first Monday in March of each year, and that the same may continue in session for a period of
7 weeks, or until the business is disposed of. Said statute further provides that another term of said court shall begin on the first Monday in May of each year. Complete Texas Statutes 1920, or Vernon’s Aim. Civ. St. Supp. 1918, art. 30, subd. 66. Appellant was allowed by law a period of 20 days only after adjournment of said term in which to file his appeal bond. Said period of time expired May 9, 1924. 1-Iis appeal bond was not filed within the time allowed by law for perfecting an appeal from said judgment, and the same was insufficient to confer jurisdiction upon this court to hear and determine this appeal. Revised Statutes 1911, art. 2084; Dilworth v. Steves & Son, 107 Tex. 73, 174 S. W. 279; *1110Simpson v. Baker, 57 Tex. Civ. App. 460, 122 S.W. 960; James v. Golson (Tex. Civ. App.) 165 S. W. 896; Hartsough-Stewart Const. Co. v. Harty & Vogelsang (Tex. Civ. App.) 183 S. W. 1.
Appellant, in reply to said motion; contends that said statute, properly construed, permitted said court to remain in session for more than 7 weeks if the business was not sooner disposed of, and that, inasmuch as, in the year 1924, 9 weeks elapsed between the beginning of the March term and the date fixed for the beginning of the May term of said court, said March term was one which might by law continue for more than 8 weeks, and that he, as a nonresident of the county in which said court was held, had 30 days after giving notice of appeal in which to file his appeal bond. We do not agree with his contention that said term might by law have continued more than 8 weeks, but if it were sound, it would not save his appeal in this case. In such case he would have been required in any event to file his appeal bond within' 30 days after giving such notice. Such bond was not filed until some 57 days after giving such notice, and was therefore insufficient to confer jurisdiction on this court. Article 2084, supra. El Paso & Northeastern R. R. Co. v. Whatley, 99 Tex. 128, 87 S. W. 819.
Notwithstanding the jurisdiction of this court was not questioned until the filing of these motions, it is our duty now to take notice of our lack of jurisdiction of this appeal. The motion for rehearing is therefore granted and the appeal herein dismissed. Dilworth v. Steves & Son, supra.