Court Opinion

ID: 9774164
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 18:10:31.332537+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:32:03.189243
License: Public Domain

NORVELL, Justice
(dissenting).
Upon consideration of appellant’s motion for rehearing, I am of the opinion that we erred in dismissing this appeal for want of jurisdiction. The judgment of the district court was a final order from which an appeal lies to this Court under the provisions of Article 1819, Vernon’s Ann.-Tex. Stats. The only supportable theory under which our dismissal can be sustained is that the trial court was without jurisdiction of the case. The petition filed by appellant contained all the requisites of an original petition. It was, however, improperly described as an “amended petition” and given the docket number of a disposed of case. Did this irregularity defeat the jurisdiction of the district court? In my. opinion it did not. In her motion, appellant cites cases which hold that a misdescribed and irregularly docketed pleading may be considered as an original petition, and serve to institute a new suit. Black v. Black, Tex.Civ.App., 2 S.W.2d 331; Keith v. Keith, Tex.Civ.App., 286 S.W. 534; Buckholts State Bank v. Thallman, Tex.Civ.App., 196 S.W. 687. If we'look to the substance of things, the so-called “amended, petition” necessarily must have been an original petition, as there was no live pleading which it could amend. Despite its misnomer and improper docketing, the petition was still sufficient to invoke the jurisdiction of the district court as that jurisdiction is defined by our Constitution and statutes. I respectfully dissent from the order overruling the-motion for rehearing.