Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

86 Tex. 67

23 S.W 379

Davidson v. Ikard

Texas Supreme Court

Decided October 12, 1893

Texas Supreme Court · decided 1893-10-12

Davidson perfected an appeal from a judgment against him in the District Court. After the time prescribed by law within which the transcript should have been filed, and on February 4, 1893, he filed a motion in the Court of Civil Appeals, asking leave to file the transcript. Accompanying the motion was an affidavit accounting for the delay. This was overruled February 22, 1893. March 1 the appellees filed motion to affirm on certificate.

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““The affidavits filed by the respective parties must be presumed to have been considered and passed upon by the Court of Civil Appeals, and thereupon that court would have been fully authorized to find that the facts set up as an excuse for not filing the transcript in proper time had no existence. “We must presume that such was the finding, and in that event the affirmance on„ certificate was correct, for appellant could not defeat the right to that by suing out a writ of error after he had failed to prosecute his appeal. Perez v. Garza, 52 Tex. 571 ; Thompson v. Anderson, 82 Tex. 238 [ 18 S. W. 153 ].””

quoted by 1 later decision, including Jewell v. Albrecht

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1893-10-12

How this case has been cited

Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently July 1933

11 state decisions

6018931900191019201930decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

STAYTON, Chief Justice.

¶1 — Plaintiff in error perfected an appeal from a judgment rendered against him, but failed to file transcript in Court of Civil Appeals within time, prescribed by statute, and on application, supported by affidavit showing good reason why the transcript was not filed in proper time, the court overruled the motion to file.

¶2 Appellees then asked affirmance of the judgment on certificate, which was objected to by plaintiff in error, on the ground that he had sued o.ut a writ error after his application to file transcript under his appeal was overruled, but the Court of Civil Appeals affirmed the judgment on certificate.

¶3 The application for writ of error was accompanied by a transcript of the application to file the transcript, a part of which was an affidavit filed for appellant showing facts that would excuse the failure to file the transcript in proper time, but it did not contain the affidavits controverting the facts contained in that affidavit.

¶4 The latter have been brought up by certiorari, and are in direct conflict with the affidavit showing excuse for failure to file the transcript in proper time.

¶5 The affidavits filed by the respective parties must be presumed to havé been considered and passed upon by the Court of Civil Appeals, and thereupon that court would have been fully authorized to find that the facts set up as an excuse for not filing the transcript in proper time had no existence.

¶6 We must presume that such was the finding, and in that event the affirmance on certificate was correct, for appellant could not defeat the right to that by suing out a writ of error after he had failed to prosecute his appeal. Perez v. Garza, 52 Texas, 571; Thompson v. Anderson, 82 Texas, 238.

¶7 The judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals will be affirmed.

¶8 Affirmed.

/86/tex/67 · .json · Public domain