Mr. Presiding Judge HARVEY
¶1
delivered the opinion of the Commission of Appeals, Section A.
¶2 *455
At the instance of the relators herein, we recommend that the application for mandamus be dismissed. We further recommend that all costs be adjudged against the relator, Vera D. Webster.
¶3
Relators’ motion to dismiss the petition for mandamus granted, and all costs adjudged against the relator Vera D. Webster.
¶4
C. M. Cureton,
Chief Justice.
Download
Copy
Embed on your site
iframe Markdown Preview card Button Hover to preview · click to copy the code
Case posture Posture Original application by Vera D. Webster and by W. H. Crunk and W. B. and Norman Hamilton for writ of mandamus against Carter, District Judge.
The Supreme Court referred relator's application to the Commission of Appeals, Section A, for their opinion and here dismisses the petition for mandamus in accord with their recommendation.
The controversy appears to be between lawyers over the right to represent Mrs. Webster in a litigation. D. F. Webster was killed by coming in contact with an electric wire of the Texas-Louisiana Power Co. His father, R. B. Webster for himself and on behalf of the mother, the child, and Vera Webster, the widow of deceased, brought suit in the District Court of Grayson County for damages. The controversy herein was between the attorneys employed by R. B. Webster and others who claimed to have been chosen by Vera Webster to represent her and her child.
The application was for mandamus to the Presiding Judge to require him to permit these latter lawyers to appear on behalf of Mrs. Vera Webster. She, however, filed a motion representing that she did not want to be represented by them but by the lawyers chosen by R. B. Webster and asking that the petition for mandamus be dismissed, which is accordingly done. Source: CourtListener
Court 