From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Mahan v. Kyle

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas, El Paso
Apr 17, 1919
211 S.W. 302 (Tex. Civ. App. 1919)

Opinion

No. 963.

April 17, 1919.

Appeal from Young County Court; W. P. Stinson, Judge.

Suit between W. L. Mahan and Crockett Kyle. From the judgment rendered, the former appeals. Affirmed.

Arnold Arnold, of Graham, for appellant.

Marshall King, of Graham, for appellee.


1. The appeal in this case was not perfected by the mere notice of appeal. It was not perfected and the jurisdiction of the appellate court did not attach until the appeal bond was filed. Articles 2084 and 2099, R.S.; Gordon v. Rhodes, 104 S.W. 787.

2. During the term the court had full control over the first judgment entered, and of its own motion could set aside or amend the same. Hooker v. Williamson, 60 Tex. 524. It had the authority to amend the first judgment because the amendment was made during the term and before the appeal bond had been filed.

3. The effect of the entry of the second judgment was to amend the first judgment entered. 23 Cyc. 882.

4. There being no bill of exception or statement of facts, it will be presumed that appellant had due notice of the purpose to amend.

Upon the foregoing conclusions, the assignments are all without merit.

Affirmed.


Summaries of

Mahan v. Kyle

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas, El Paso
Apr 17, 1919
211 S.W. 302 (Tex. Civ. App. 1919)
Case details for

Mahan v. Kyle

Case Details

Full title:MAHAN v. KYLE

Court:Court of Civil Appeals of Texas, El Paso

Date published: Apr 17, 1919

Citations

211 S.W. 302 (Tex. Civ. App. 1919)

Citing Cases

Townes v. Lattimore Dist. Judge

He could set it aside without any motion, and of his own accord. Corpus Juris, Vol. 34, p. 243; Hooker v.…

Nichols v. Nichols

The fact that the court did not state in the second judgment that the first had been vacated or withdrawn is…