Johnson v. Cheney
Texas Supreme Court
Appeal from Rusk. Tried below before the Hon. William W. Morris. Suit commenced by appellants against appellee, Nov. 15th, 1853. On the 18th day of the Spring Term, (which commenced on the ninth Monday after the third Monday in March, 1855,) there was an entry as follows: Now come the plaintiffs by their attorneys, and dismiss this case as per agreement filed.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Rusk. Tried below before the Hon. William W. Morris. Suit commenced by appellants against appellee, Nov. 15th, 1853. On the 18th day of the Spring Term, (which commenced on the ninth Monday after the third Monday in March, 1855,) there was an entry as follows: Now come the plaintiffs by their attorneys, and dismiss this case as per agreement filed. It is thereupon considered by the Court, that the defendant recover of the plaintiff all costs in this behalf expended, and that this judgment be certified to the County Court to be paid by said plaintiffs in due course of…
1Opinion of the CourtWheeler, J.
The question presented by this appeal is» *339.igaticn was continued before the arbitrators in vacation, under the style of the case as it stood in Court, as the record shows. The litigation was still pending ; and so, we think, was the suit, actually and potentially, though nominally dismissed. The entry of the order of dismissal, under the circumstances, did not, in our opinion, operate a discontinuance of the suit. Such, doubtless, would have been the effect of suspending the litigation in Court under the Common Law practice ; for there, if the plaintiff leaves a chasm in the proceedings of…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Galbraith v. BishopTexas Commission of Appeals · 1926
- Turman v. TurmanCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1932
- Hill v. NeeseCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1913
- Kruegel v. WilliamsCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1917