IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-03-193-CV

     MACK ELLISON

     AND LAVETTA ELLISON,

                                                                              Appellants

     v.

     MARY FRANCES YANCEY,

     TRUSTEE, ET AL.,

                                                                              Appellees

From the 66th District Court

Hill County, Texas

Trial Court # 39658

MEMORANDUM OPINION

      Appellants Mack and Lavetta Ellison have filed a motion to dismiss their appeal. They state that the parties have settled all matters in controversy.

      Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.1(a)(1) provides:

(a) The appellate court may dispose of an appeal as follows:

(1) On Motion of Appellant. In accordance with a motion of appellant, the court may dismiss the appeal or affirm the appealed judgment or order unless such disposition would prevent a party from seeking relief to which it would otherwise be entitled.

Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(1).

      The Ellisons’ dismissal motion satisfies the requirements of the appellate rules. Appellees have not filed a response. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal with costs to be taxed against the Ellisons. See id. 42.1(d).

                                                                   PER CURIAM

Before Justice Vance,

      Justice Gray, and

      Justice Hill (Sitting by Assignment)

Appeal dismissed

Opinion delivered and filed August 13, 2003

[CV06]

/span> or will we follow the road with a single court, whose only case on the issue has a subsequent history of dubious value.

      I would take the more frequently traveled road and follow the majority of published decisions, not just because there are more of them, but also because they have the better reasoned analysis. There is no need for me to repeat that analysis here. I recognize that in life, it is frequently refreshing to get off the interstate highway and tour scenic back roads. That is fine for automobile travel. But this is not automobile travel. This is the law. We should use our published decisions to bring stability and predictability to the law. It may not be glamorous, innovative, or novel, but there is comfort for the litigant, and the trial court judge, in knowing that the law will be the same if the case is tried and appealed to the Tenth Court of Appeals, as it will be if it is tried and appealed to the Seventh Court of Appeals or the First Court of Appeals, or, if they choose to follow the mainstream, any of the courts of appeals that have not yet decided this issue for their district.

      Without discussion of a compelling reason to do so, the majority chooses to take the road less traveled. I respectfully dissent.

                                                             TOM GRAY

                                                             Chief Justice

Dissenting opinion delivered and filed March 10, 2004