Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

91 Tex. 147

40 S.W 955

Durst v. McCampbell

Texas Supreme Court

Decided June 26, 1897

Texas Supreme Court · decided 1897-06-26

Mary J. Durst et al. brought suit in the District Court of Cameron County, against J. S. McCampbell, to remove cloud from title and cancel deeds. Plaintiffs recovered judgment, which was reversed by the Supreme Court on defendants’ appeal. McCampbell v. Durst, 73 Texas, 410. The venue being changed to Nueces County, plaintiffs again had judgment, and upon defendant’s appeal it was again reversed by the Court of Civil Appeals. 40 S. W. Rep., 315.

Relies on McCampbell v. Durst

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1897-06-26

How this case has been cited

Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently March 1987

14 state decisions

401897190019101920193019401950196019701980decided

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 →

¶1This is an application for a writ of error to a judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals which reversed the judgment of the District Court and remanded the cause. In order to show jurisdiction in this court, it is alleged in the petition for the writ that the decision of the Court of Civil Appeals is in conflict with the decision of the Supreme Court in the same case reported in 73 Tex. 410, upon the question whether or not the action was barred by the statute of limitations of four years. It is impossible to determine from the report of the case upon the former appeal whether that question was passed upon by this court or not. By referring to the original transcript on that appeal, we find that the appellants assigned error in the action of the trial court in overruling their exception to the petition upon the ground that the action was barred by the statute of limitation. But the briefs which were filed upon that appeal have been lost from the file; and we cannot ascertain, whether the assignment was carried into the brief or not. If not, it was waived and the question was not before the court. If it was, the question was presented and we think it is fairly to be presumed, that the court held the assignment not well taken. If so, then there is a conflict between that decision and that of the Court of Civil Appeals.

¶2Thinking it probable that a copy of the brief referred to may be procured and presented to this court and that it will show definitely whether the assignment was presented or not, we will suspend action upon the application for two weeks, so as to give counsel an opportunity to procure and present such copy. If presented, it should be accompanied with satisfactory evidence that it is a true copy of the original filed in the Supreme Court.

¶3Delivered May 20, 1897.

/91/tex/147 · .json · Public domain