Court Opinion

ID: 9777433
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 20:11:04.871086+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:32:54.011838
License: Public Domain

WALKER, Justice
(dissenting).
I respectfully dissent, although I agree that the Court of Civil Appeals had jurisdiction to entertain, and should rule on, the second motion for extension of time to file the statement of facts. This question could and should be presented by application for writ of error, however, after the Court of Civil Appeals dismisses the appeal or affirms on certificate. That remedy would be entirely adequate, and by waiting until the question reaches us in the usual manner we would be in position to consider the merits of the second motion and determine whether relators were prejudiced by the intermediate court’s failure to entertain the same.
When the remedy by appeal is adequate, as here, it is my opinion that the time and energy consumed by this Court in attempting to supervise and correct interlocutory orders of trial and intermediate • appellate courts can be used to better advantage in considering and deciding important substantive law questions. As we said in Iley v. Hughes, 158 Tex. 362, 311 S.W.2d 648, interference by mandamus is justified only when parties stand to lose their substantial rights. I would deny the petition for writ of mandamus on the ground that relators have an adequate remedy by appeal. See State v. Archer, 163 Tex. 234, 353 S.W.2d 841.