Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Bussing
Court of Appeals of Texas
1Opinion of the CourtHiggins, Justice
(after stating the case as above).
The entry of a judgment nunc pro tunc at a subsequent term of court is not authorized, unless a judgment was actually rendered at the previous term of the court. A judgment nunc pro tunc presupposes a judgment previously actually rendered at the proper time, but not entered of record. 25 Tex.Jur., Judgments, Sects. 68 and 70; Hannon v. Henson, Tex.Com.App., 15 S.W.2d-579; Camoron v. Thurmond, 56 Tex. 22; Finnigan-Brown Co. v. Escobar, Tex. Civ.App., 192 S.W. 256; Waggoner v. Davis, Tex.Civ.App., 261 S.W. 482; Texas & N. O. R. Co. v. Turner, Tex.Civ.App., 193…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Camoron v. ThurmondTexas Supreme Court · 1881
- Chicago, R. I. & G. Ry. Co. v. ScottCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1912
- Finnigan-Brown Co. v. EscobarCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1917
- Waggoner v. DavisCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1924
- Young's Bus Lines, Inc. v. RedmonCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1931
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Lone Star Gas Co. v. HolifieldCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1941
- Universal Life Ins. Co. v. CookCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1945
- Hicks v. GlennCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1941
- Moore, Inc. v. York Oil Field Service Co.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1949