Court Opinion

ID: 9831594
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 21:14:03.919587+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:36.300181
License: Public Domain

On Appellant’s Second Motion for Rehearing.
On June 4, 1927, we granted appellant’s motion for leave to file his second motion for rehearing, inasmuch as he called to our attention the fact that a writ of error had been granted in the ease of P. J. Webster & Son v. L. C. Lucas, 288 S. W. 469, decided by the Eastland Court of Civil Appeals. In that case the appellate court had decided the question herein involved, as we did on a former hearing. The Supreme Court, in an opinion by Associate Justice Pierson (296 S. W. 1089), on June 22, 1927, affirmed the judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals, and ordered the appeal dismissed. We have a copy of that opinion. In the Supreme Court opinion it is said:
“We detect no real difference in the statute as revised in the codification of 1925 from what it was in the revised statutes of 1911 and 1896. The sentence is somewhat shortened, but the wording is in essential respects the same. We can find no intent therein to change the requirements in regard to the filing of the’appeal bond. It is true the change did not improve the wording of the statute. * * * We do not deem it necessary or advisable to discuss the reasons of the statute, that is, the reason why the statute should grant thirty days after adjournment of court, in terms that continue more than eight weeks, for the filing of an appeal bond, where the appellant resides out of the county, and for not allowing thirty days to those residing out of the county where the term continues less than eight weeks. For many years the court have construed these requirements uniformly, as held I herein. We think the Legislature in the revi- ¡ sion of 1925 did not change it, and in the Acts of the Fortieth Legislature restated its purpose and intent that it should continue to be as it had formerly been. While a re-enactment or restatement of a law by a subsequent Legislature is not conclusive, yet it is persuasive as to the legislative intent.”
Therefore appellant’s second motion for rehearing is overruled, and also the motion to certify.