Court Opinion

ID: 9672001
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 03:46:59.623969+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:13.701700
License: Public Domain

ON APPELLANTS’ MOTION FOR REHEARING
Albert Furney Muller, Jr. and James Robert Muller, appellants, have filed a Motion for Rehearing incorporating a request that we take judicial knowledge of the fact that a jury fee was paid in a timely manner. They stated in their original appellants’ brief that the jury fee was paid. We accept this fact.
However, no jury is required in a supplemental proceeding the purpose of which is to enforce a final judgment. Burrage v. Hunt Production Co., 114 S.W.2d 1228 (Tex.Civ.App.-Dallas 1938, writ dism’d); Cocke v. Southland Life Insurance Co., 75 S.W.2d 194 (Tex.Civ.App.-El Paso 1934, writ ref'd.).
In a proper case orders, not inconsistent with a final judgment, may be entered for the purpose of carrying the judgment into execution. Reynolds v. Harrison, 635 S.W.2d 845 (Tex.App.-Tyler 1982, writ ref’d n.r.e.).
The motion for rehearing is denied.