Court Opinion

ID: 9760218
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 00:43:25.890922+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:09.380512
License: Public Domain

KEITH, Justice,
concurring.
I join, without reservation, in the scholarly and well-reasoned opinion affirming the judgment of the trial court. I file this concurring opinion to assert the existence of another ground of affirmance.
The summary judgment record in this case shows without contradiction that Port Arthur Ordinance No. 79-116 was involved in a quo warranto proceeding in Cause No. A-110319 upon the docket of the District Court of Jefferson County, Texas, entitled “The State of Texas, ex rel. The Superior Oil Company vs. City of Port Arthur, Texas.” 1
On February 26, 1980, a judgment was entered in the consolidated cause upholding the validity of Port Arthur Ordinance No. *9979-116 challenged by Superior Oil in this proceeding. The judgment in the original quo warranto suit was final before the instant proceeding was filed.2 Superior Oil Company, having participated in the prior quo warranto proceedings, is bound by the judgment entered therein. Williams v. White, 223 S.W.2d 278, 283 (Tex.Civ.App.—San Antonio 1949, writ ref’d). See also, Cochran County v. Boyd, 26 S.W.2d 364, 365 (Tex.Civ.App.—Amarillo 1930, writ ref’d); Allied Van Lines v. Central Forwarding, Inc., 535 S.W.2d 412, 415-416 (Tex.Civ.App.—Waco 1976, writ ref’d n. r. e.).
I join in the affirmation of the trial court’s judgment denying any relief to the appellant.

. This cause was consolidated for trial with another cause pending in said court bearing No. A-l 10231, styled “The State of Texas, ex rel., Bob Armstrong, Commissioner of The General Land Office vs. City of Port Arthur, Texas.”

. The State of Texas and Superior Oil Company attempted to appeal from the judgment entered in the District Court in the quo warranto proceedings but failed to file the transcript within the prescribed time. Our Clerk refused to file the record and, upon motion by the appellants in that cause, we refused to order the Clerk to file the record and the trial court’s judgment became final. These proceedings are in our record under No. 8566, “The State of Texas, ex rel. Bob Armstrong, Commissioner of The General Land Office, et al v. City of Port Arthur, Texas.”
The summary judgment record establishes the finality of the quo warranto judgment. Moreover, we are authorized and do take notice of our own records in a case involving the same subject matter between the same parties. Cochran County v. Boyd, 26 S.W.2d 364, 365 (Tex.Civ.App.—Amarillo 1930, writ ref'd).