Court Opinion

ID: 9857415
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 14:33:54.213379+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:40:27.090152
License: Public Domain

ON REHEARING
Appellees on rehearing assert this court has no jurisdiction over the appeal because the trial court’s order “reinstating the case” was interlocutory, and appeal does not lie from an interlocutory order unless authorized by statute; citing North East Ind. Sch. Dist. v. Aldridge, S.Ct., 400 S.W.2d 893; Hayman v. Hayman, CCA, NWH, 512 S.W.2d 71, and Marulanda v. Mendez, CCA, NWH, 489 S.W.2d 128.
Ordinarily there is no appeal from an interlocutory order (unless authorized by Statute), and the order of reinstatement here was interlocutory.
But the rule is different where the order is void because of lack of jurisdiction or power of the trial court to act. This is the case here. In such situation the appellate court has authority and jurisdiction over the void proceeding to declare its invalidity and to set it aside. Fulton v. Finch, 162 Tex. 351, 346 S.W.2d 823; Matlock v. Williams, CCA, NWH, 281 S.W.2d 229; Brady v. Fry, CCA, NWH, 517 S.W.2d 304; Travelers Express Company, Inc., v. Winters, CCA, NRE, 488 S.W.2d 890.
Be we mistaken in the above, appel-lee can take little consolation, because where an order is interlocutory and not appealable, but is void, mandamus lies to *484the Court of Civil Appeals to require the trial court to set aside its void order. McGregor v. Clawson, CCA, 506 S.W.2d 922.
Motion for rehearing overruled.