Miller v. Stine, 91 S.W.2d 315 (Tex. 1936). · Go Syfert
Search
Miller v. Stine, 91 S.W.2d 315 (Tex. 1936). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
27 citation events (1 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Stringfellow v. Brown (texapp, 1959-06-12)
Treatment trajectory · 1938 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1938 1982 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited "see" Stringfellow v. Brown
Tex. App. · 1959 · signal: see · confidence high
See Richardson v. Houston Oil Co. of Texas, Tex.Civ.App., 176 S.W. 628 , cited with approval by the Supreme Court in Lund v. Doyno, 127 Tex. 19 , 91 S.W.2d 315 .
discussed Cited "see" McClure v. Miller (2×)
Tex. App. · 1938 · signal: see · confidence high
See Miller v. Stine, 127 Tex. 22 , 91 S.W.2d 315 .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Estell Miller
v.
Honorable Vincent Stine, District Judge.
No. 6520..
Texas Supreme Court.
Feb 26, 1936.
91 S.W.2d 315
1936 Tex. LEXIS 270
Benson Benson, of Bowie, for relator. Vincent Stine, in pro per, of Henrietta, for respondent.
German.
Cited by 7 opinions  |  Published
Mr. Judge GERMAN

delivered the opinion for the court. This is an original mandamus proceeding brought by Estell Miller, a feme sole, against Honorable Vincent Stine, Judge of the District Court of the 97th Judicial District of Texas.- The purpose of the suit is to compel the respondent to enter judgment in favor of relator in the case of Estell Miller v. R. L. McClure tried in the District Court of Montague County on April 13, 1933.

On careful inspection of the record we find that R. L. McClure, defendant in the cause mentioned, has not been a party to this proceeding, and has filed no answer herein. He being a necessary party, the order allowing filing of the petition was improvidently entered. Williams v. Wray, 123 Texas, 466, 72 S. W. (2d) 577, and authorities cited.

Since the filing of the petition in this case the Supreme Court has again taken occasion to specifically declare that in all cases where the Court of Civil Appeals has power to issue writs of mandamus, this court will not permit the filing of petitions for such writs. Dallas Railway & Terminal Company v. Watkins et al., 126 Texas, 116, 86 S. W. (2d) 1081.

The petition for mandamus is therefore dismissed.

Opinion adopted by the Supreme Court Febrary 26, 1936.