Court Opinion

ID: 9829099
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 18:59:14.146526+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:57.191401
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
It is stated in the motion “that the law of the case was laid down on a former appeal,” and “that' the appellate court held that this cause should be stayed upon the docket of the trial court pending the said bankruptcy proceedings.” Appellant misconceives or misapprehends the decision on a former appeal. The Court of Civil Appeals at Texarkana did not hold that the proceedings should be stayed pending bankruptcy proceedings. In that decision it was held in plain terms that the pendency of bankruptcy proceedings did not ipso facto supersede and abate proceedings in a state court, and that such proceedings should not have been dismissed by reason of such bankruptcy proceedings. All that was said about a stay of the proceedings’ in the state court was that they might have been stayed upon proper application, and not one word was said “to the effect that this cause should be stayed upon the docket of the trial court pending the said bankruptcy proceedings of the Walker Grain Company, or until the trustee in bankruptcy chose to prosecute the same.” No language used by the -court can be distorted into any such ruling, and yet that is the only ground offered for a rehearing.
The motion is overruled.