Court Opinion

ID: 2923563
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-11 03:32:11.343007+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:49:09.160579
License: Public Domain

NUMBER
13-05-636-CV
 
                                 COURT
OF APPEALS
 
                     THIRTEENTH
DISTRICT OF TEXAS
 
                         CORPUS
CHRISTI - EDINBURG
__________________________________________________________________
 
JOE S. CARRION, ET AL.,                                                             Appellants,
 
                                                             v.
 
A.
W. CHESTERTON COMPANY, ET AL.,                                     Appellees.
__________________________________________________________________
 
                             On
appeal from the 319th District Court
                                        of
Nueces County, Texas.
___________________________________________________________________
 
                               MEMORANDUM
OPINION
 
              Before
Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Hinojosa and Garza
                                   Memorandum
Opinion Per Curiam
 
Appellants, Joe S. Carrion, et al., attempted to
perfect an appeal from an order entered by the Honorable Thomas F. Greenwell of
the 319th District Court of Nueces County, Texas, in cause no. 04-06983-G.

On October 17, 2005, the Clerk of this Court
notified appellants that, upon review of the documents on file, it appeared
that the trial court granted a severance in cause no. 04-06983-G; however, a
new cause number had not yet been assigned to the severed cause due to unpaid
fees with the Nueces County District Clerk=s office. 
Accordingly, the cause number in which the notice of appeal was filed
did not contain a final appealable judgment. 
Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.3, notice of this
defect was given so that steps could be taken to correct the defect, if it
could be done. Appellants were advised that, if the defect was not corrected
within ten days from the date of receipt of this notice, the appeal would be
dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Appellants=
response to this Court=s letter fails to explain or otherwise correct the
defect..
The Court, having considered the documents on file
and appellants= response to the Clerk=s
letter, is of the opinion that the appeal should be dismissed for want of
jurisdiction.  Accordingly, the appeal is
hereby DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION. 
All pending motions are denied as moot.
 
PER CURIAM
 
Memorandum
Opinion delivered and filed 
this
the 26th day of January, 2006.