Grand Lodge Colored Knights of Pythias v. Adams, 107 S.W.2d 355

Grand Lodge Colored Knights of Pythias v. Adams

107 S.W.2d 355 | Tex. | 1937

Lead Opinion

The opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals in this case is reported in 105 S.W.2d 731. *361

1 The application for writ of error is dismissed for want of jurisdiction, because it does not comply with subdivision (d) of Rule No. 1 of the rules governing procedure in the Supreme Court, effective January 1, 1931 (121 Tex. 745), which requires the application to show that a motion for rehearing was filed in the Court of Civil Appeals presenting the complaints upon which the writ is asked. The Supreme Court has no jurisdiction to consider applications for writs of error not complying with the rule. Leonard Bros. v. Newton, 129 Tex. 1,101 S.W.2d 223; Knodel v. Equitable Life Ins. Co., (Tex. Com. App.) 221 S.W. 941; Employers' Cas. Co. v. Roland, (Tex. Com. App.) 1 S.W.2d 568; Blackmon v. Train, (Tex. Com. App.)12 S.W.2d 967.

Opinion delivered July 14, 1937.

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING AND TO AMEND APPLICATION.

Addendum

2 The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed the judgment of the trial court in this cause. (105 S.W.2d 731.) Application for writ of error was dismissed by this Court because the application did not show that a motion for rehearing had been filed in the Court of Civil Appeals, presenting the questions on which the writ was asked, as required by Rule 1 of this Court printed in121 Tex. 745. (107 S.W.2d 355.)

After the application was dismissed for failure to comply with the rule, plaintiff in error filed a motion for rehearing and for leave to amend the application. That motion is now pending here.

It appearing that the motion was filed after the Court had dismissed the application for failure to comply with the requirements of the rule, for the reasons stated in the opinion in the case of H. C. Glenn, Receiver, v. A. V. McCarty, Jr., et al., 130 Tex. 641, 110 S.W.2d 1148, this day announced, the motion for leave to amend the application comes too late, and it is therefore overruled.

Opinion delivered December 8, 1937. *362