Early-Foster Co. v. Mid-Tex Mills
Cases that cite this one
7 later published cases cite this decision.
- Clare v. Maroney (Tex. App. 1940)
- Wichita Valley Ry. Co. v. Nichols (Tex. Comm'n App. 1932)
- Wall v. Guest (Tex. App. 1925)
- Golden West Oil Co. No. 1 v. Golden Rod Oil Co. No. 1 (Tex. App. 1925)
- Peck & Hickernell v. Noble Oil & Development Co. (Tex. App. 1924)
- Fort Worth & D. C. Ry. Co. v. Carpenter (Tex. App. 1923)
- Commissioners' Court of Henderson County v. Burk (Tex. App. 1923)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
No other grounds deemed sufficient are urged for the advancement of the cause, and the motion is therefore overruled.
In view of the provisions of articles 1608 and 2073, Vernon’s Sayles’ Civil Statutes, we think the motion should be denied. Article 1608 provides that the plaintiff in error shall file the transcript with the clerk of the *1118 Court of Civil Appeals within 90 days from the service of the writ of error. The record discloses that this was done. Article 2073 contains this proviso:
“Provided that any statement of facts filed before the time for filing the transcript in the appellate court expires, shall be considered as having been filed within the time allowed by law for filing same.”
The statement of facts having been filed here before the time for filing the transcript expired by law, the effect of the latter article is that it has been filed in time. For the reasons indicated, this motion also is overruled.
Motions overruled.
cg=»For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.