Court Opinion

ID: 9829491
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 19:21:07.176248+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:41:30.298906
License: Public Domain

Motion for Rehearing by John R. and L. C. Estelle, Jr.
There is nothing in the motion which did not have our careful consideration when we handed down our original opinion. Counsel insists, however, that we should write upon the following point: The appeal bond was made payable to Estelle’s sons, but not to their guardian ad litem, and it is urged that the bond was therefore defective; that this court acquired no jurisdiction; and the appeal should be dismissed.
The record was filed in this court March 21, 1930, and this alleged defect in the bond *672was first called to this court’s attention in the brief of Estelle’s sons filed October 8, 1930.
The precise contention of appellant was overruled in the recent case of Roberts v. Stoneham (Tex. Civ. App.) 31 S.W.(2d) 856, 858, from which we quote: “Under R. S. art. 1840, defects both of substance and of form in an appeal bond may be cured by amendment. Such defects are not jurisdictional (Foster v. Bunting (Tex. Civ. App.) 19 S.W. (2d) 784), and are waived by failure to present objections to the bond by motion within thirty days after the transcript is filed. Court of Civil Appeals Rule 8; De Proy v. Progakis (Tex. Civ. App.) 269 S. W. 620.”
The motion is overruled.
Overruled.