Legal Opinion

Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Bussing

Court of Appeals of Texas

Decided June 1, 1939No. 3840PublishedCited by 4 opinions

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

  1. Camoron v. ThurmondTexas Supreme Court · 1881
  2. Chicago, R. I. & G. Ry. Co. v. ScottCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1912
  3. Finnigan-Brown Co. v. EscobarCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1917
  4. Waggoner v. DavisCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1924
  5. 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

  1. Lone Star Gas Co. v. HolifieldCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1941
  2. Universal Life Ins. Co. v. CookCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1945
  3. Hicks v. GlennCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1941
  4. Moore, Inc. v. York Oil Field Service Co.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1949

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API