Court Opinion

ID: 9833528
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 22:47:55.443641+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:44:03.948179
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing.
■ Appellee errs in its assumption that we held this court “had no jurisdiction in this case.” Had it been so held, the appeal would have been dismissed.
This is a case where the trial court assumed jurisdiction and rendered judgment upon the merits in favor of the plaintiff when the facts necessary to confer jurisdiction upon that court were not shown.
This being the case, this court had and assumed appellate jurisdiction for the purpose of reversing the judgment erroneously rendered below, and since it was apparent the jurisdictional defect could not be remedied, judgment was here rendered dismissing the suit.
That this court had the appellate jurisdiction indicated and rendered the proper judgment upon the facts shown is well settled. Ware v. Clark, 58 Tex. Civ. App. 356, 125 S. W. 618; Hearn v. Outberth, 10 Tex. 216; Roeser v. Bellmer, 7 Tex. 1; Timmins v. Bonner, 58 Tex. 554; Ry. Co. v. Canyon Coal Co., 102 Tex. 478, 119 S. W. 294; Turnbow v. Bryant Co., 107 Tex. 563, 181 S. W. 686; Perry v. Greer, 110 Tex. 549, 221 S. W. 931; Tinsley v. Smith (Tex. Civ. App.) 25 S. W. 64; Rice v. Rice, 24 Tex. Civ. App. 506, 59 S. W. 941.
Aside from the erroneous conception of the effect of this court’s opinion and ruling, the motion for rehearing presents nothing new.
The motion is therefore overruled.