Lawyers Lloyds v. Webb, 152 S.W.2d 1096 (Tex. 1941). · Go Syfert
Search
Lawyers Lloyds v. Webb, 152 S.W.2d 1096 (Tex. 1941). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
322 citation events (79 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Jerry Spence D/B/A Big Country Irrigation v. Mark Hadley & Virginia Reger Morton, Tr. of the Virginia Reger Morton Revocable Living Trust, No. 11-19-00389-CV (Tex. App.—Eastland Oct. 28, 2021)
Treatment trajectory · 1941 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1941 1983 2026
How cited ↗
Cited for
152 S.W.2d at 1097 Defining a trial on the merits and related concepts50 citing cases“The actual trial of a case, as ordinarily understood by the legal profession, is the hearing in open court, leading up to the rendition of judgment, on the questions of law, if the case is disposed of on the questions of law, or on the questions of fact, if the final judgment is rendered on the fac…”4 citing courts quote it · 46 listed here
  • In Re Ief, 345 S.W.3d 637 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2011).published 2 cites
    (A trial on the merits is any final adjudication from which an appeal may be taken to a court of appeals.)
  • In Re in the Interest of I.E.F., 345 S.W.3d 637 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2011).published 2 cites
    (A trial on the merits is any final adjudication from which an appeal may be taken to a court of appeals.)
  • In the Interest of J.C.F., a Child v. the State of Texas, No. 05-24-00711-CV (Tex. App.—Dallas Sept. 30, 2024).published
    (construing writs of error, the predecessors to restricted appeals)
  • Vilt & Assocs., P.C. & Mediation Centers of Am., L.L.C. v. Ho Kon Parker & Richard T. Parker, No. 04-19-00416-CV (Tex. App.—San Antonio Aug. 26, 2020).published
    In reaching this holding, the supreme court noted the difference between participation in the context of a summary judgment and participation in the context of a jury trial: “[P]articipation in a case tried to a jury requires some degree o…
  • Pamela Mehl v. David Stern, No. 03-14-00697-CV (Tex. App.—Austin Aug. 7, 2015).published 2 cites
    App.—Texarkana 1965, writ ref’d n.r.e.) . 17 Krumnow v. Krumnow, 174 S.W.3d 820 (Tex. App.—Waco 2005, pet. denied) ......................... 16 Lawyers Lloyds of Texas v. Webb, 137 Tex. 107 , 152 S.W.2d 1096, 1097 (1941) ..................…
  • Cox v. Cox, 298 S.W.3d 726 (Tex. App.—Austin 2009).published
    Texaco, 925 S.W.2d at 589 (citing Lawyers Lloyds v. Webb, 137 Tex. 107 , 152 S.W.2d 1096, 1097-98 (1941)).
  • John Cox v. Joy Cox, No. 03-08-00650-CV (Tex. App.—Austin Aug. 28, 2009).published
    Texaco , 925 S.W.2d at 589 (citing Lawyers Lloyds v. Webb , 152 S.W.2d 1096, 1097-98 (Tex. 1941)).
  • Joachim Osayande Osojie v. Vivian Osojie, No. 03-08-00688-CV (Tex. App.—Austin Aug. 28, 2009).published
    Texaco, 925 S.W.2d at 589 (citing Lawyers Lloyds v. Webb, 152 S.W.2d 1096, 1097-98 (Tex. 1941)).
  • in the Interest of A.C.R. & J.A.R., Jr., Child., No. 04-08-00643-CV (Tex. App.—San Antonio Apr. 15, 2009).published
    As such, appellant was not in “the position of those who ‘discover that a judgment has been rendered against them after judgment has been rendered.’” Blankinship, 572 S.W.2d at 808 (quoting Lawyers Lloyds of Tx. v. -2- 04-08-00643-CV Webb,…
  • Reginald I. Bailey A/K/A Ray Hill v. State, No. 03-08-00367-CV (Tex. App.—Austin Dec. 12, 2008).published
    The statute was intended to cut off the right of appeal by writ of error of those who participate in the hearing in open court in the trial that leads to final judgment." Withem , 922 S.W.2d at 957 (quoting Lawyers Lloyds of Texas v. Webb…
Show 36 more citing cases
  • Michael Anthony Sam v. State, No. 07-06-00382-CR (Tex. App.—Amarillo Jan. 30, 2007).published
    See Texaco, Inc. , 925 S.W.2d at 590-91 ; Lawyers Lloyds v. Webb , 137 Tex. 107, 110 , 152 S.W.2d 1096, 1097 (Tex. 1941); Thacker , 496 S.W.2d at 204 .
  • Ricky D Starks, 733678 v. the Texas Dep't of Crim. Just., No. 07-03-00278-CV (Tex. App.—Amarillo Aug. 30, 2004).published
    See Texaco, Inc., 925 S.W.2d at 590 - 91; Lawyers Lloyds v. Webb, 137 Tex. 107, 110 , 152 S.W.2d 1096, 1097 (Tex. 1941); -6- Thacker, 496 S.W.2d at 204 .
  • Starks v. Texas Dep't of Crim. Just., 153 S.W.3d 621 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2004).published
    See Texaco, Inc., 925 S.W.2d at 590-91 ; Lawyers Lloyds v. Webb, 137 Tex. 107, 110 , 152 S.W.2d 1096, 1097 (Tex.1941); Thacker, 496 S.W.2d at 204 .
  • Robert Barnes v. Alma Ann Barnes, No. 03-01-00653-CV, 2002 Tex. App. LEXIS 6644 (Tex. App.—Austin Sept. 12, 2002).unpublished
    “hearing in open court, leading up to the rendition of judgment, on the questions of law, if the case is disposed of on the questions of law, or on the questions of fact, if the final judgment is rendered on the facts”
  • Stephen C. Kuhns v. Dripping Springs Indep. Sch. Dist., Hays Cnty., Donald F. Carnes & Bank One Texas, N.A., No. 03-97-00722-CV (Tex. App.—Austin Apr. 16, 1998).published
    Lawyers Lloyds v. Webb, 152 S.W.2d 1096, 1097-98 (Tex. 1941).
  • C & v. CLUB v. Gonzalez, 953 S.W.2d 755 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1997).published
    “the hearing in open court, leading up to the rendition of judgment, on the questions of law, if the case is disposed of on the questions of law, or on the questions of fact, if the final judgment is rendered on the facts”
  • Greenstreet v. Heiskell, 940 S.W.2d 831 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 1997).published
    Writ of error review is not denied by participation limited to the mere filing of an answer, Petroleum Casualty Co. v. Garrison, 174 S.W.2d 74, 76 (Tex.Civ.App.—Beaumont 1943, writ ref'd n.r0000.e.), nor to the filing of a motion for new t…
  • G.S.K. v. T.K.N., 940 S.W.2d 797 (Tex. App.—El Paso 1997).published
    Stubbs v. Stubbs, 685 S.W.2d 643, 644 (Tex.1985); Lawyers Lloyds of Texas v. Webb, 137 Tex. 107 , 152 S.W.2d 1096, 1097 (1941).
  • State Farm Lloyds Ins. Co. v. Maldonado, 935 S.W.2d 805 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1996).published 2 cites
    “The actual trial of a case, as ordinarily understood by the legal profession, is the hearing in open court, leading up to the rendition of judgment, on the questions of law, if the case is disposed of on the questions o…”
  • Mays v. Perkins, 927 S.W.2d 222 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1996).published
    Stubbs, 685 S.W.2d at 644 -45 (quoting Lawyers Lloyds of Texas v. Webb, 137 Tex. 107 , 152 S.W.2d 1096, 1097 (1941)).
  • Withem v. Underwood, 922 S.W.2d 956 (Tex. 1996).published
    Lawyers Lloyds of Texas v. Webb, 137 Tex. 107 , 152 S.W.2d 1096, 1097-98 (1941).
  • Serna v. Webster, 908 S.W.2d 487 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1995).published 3 cites
    Lawyers Lloyds of Texas v. Webb, 152 S.W.2d at 1097-98 (citations omitted); see Estate of Hillje, 830 S.W.2d at 691 (Rule 45 is intended to deny review by writ of error to a party who participates in a hearing that leads to a final judgmen…
  • Texaco, Inc. v. Cent. Power & Light Co., 897 S.W.2d 854 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1995).published 12 cites
    Lawyers Lloyds of Texas v. Webb, 152 S.W.2d at 1097-98 (citations omitted).
  • Girdley v. Sw. Bell Yellow Pages, Inc., 869 S.W.2d 409 (Tex. App.—El Paso 1993).published
    Lawyers Lloyds of Texas v. Webb, 137 Tex. 107 , 152 S.W.2d 1096, 1097-98 (1941).
  • Robertson v. Hide-A-Way Lake Club, Inc., 856 S.W.2d 841 (Tex. App.—Tyler 1993).published
    The third requirement, that the petitioner did not participate in the actual trial of the case, was discussed and defined in the landmark case, Lawyers Lloyds of Texas v. Webb, 137 Tex. 107, 110 , 152 S.W.2d 1096, 1097 (1941): The actual t…
  • South Mill Mushrooms Sales v. Weenick, 851 S.W.2d 346 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1993).published
    Lawyers Lloyds of Texas v. Webb, 137 Tex. 107, 110 , 152 S.W.2d 1096, 1097 (1941).
  • Sue Ellen Gattis Williams v. Douglas Spencer Gattis, No. 03-91-00572-CV (Tex. App.—Austin June 17, 1992).unpublished
    Lawyers Lloyds v. Webb, 152 S.W.2d 1096, 1097-98 (Tex. 1941).
  • Lambda Constr. Co. v. Chamberlin Waterproofing & Roofing Sys., Inc., 784 S.W.2d 122 (Tex. App.—Austin 1990).published
    The Texas Supreme Court has emphasized that “[t]he actual trial of a case, as ordinarily understood by the legal profession, is the hearing in open court, leading up to the rendition of judgment, on the questions of law, if the case is dis…
  • Barnett v. Barnett, 750 S.W.2d 881 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1988).published
    Lawyers Lloyds of Texas v. Webb, 137 Tex. 107 , 152 S.W.2d 1096, 1097 (1941).
  • Tramco Enter., Inc. v. Indep. Am. Sav. Ass'n, 739 S.W.2d 944 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1987).published 2 cites
    Lawyers Lloyds of Texas v. Webb, 137 Tex. 107 , 152 S.W.2d 1096, 1097 (1941).
  • Stewart v. Texco Newspapers, Inc., 734 S.W.2d 175 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1987).published
    “the hearing in open court, leading up to the rendition of judgment, on the questions of law, if the case is disposed of on the questions of law, or on the questions of fact, if the final judgment is rendered on the facts”
  • Garza v. Texas Alcoholic Beverage Comm'n, 89 S.W.3d 1 (Tex. 2002).published
  • Flores v. H.E. Butt Grocery Co., 802 S.W.2d 53 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1990).published
  • Fears v. Mech. & Indus. Technicians, Inc., 654 S.W.2d 524 (Tex. App.—Tyler 1983).published
  • Smith v. Smith, 535 S.W.2d 380 (Tex. Civ. App.—Beaumont 1976).published
  • Bonewitz v. Bonewitz, 726 S.W.2d 227 (Tex. App.—Austin 1987).published
  • Stubbs v. Stubbs, 685 S.W.2d 643 (Tex. 1985).published
  • Brim Laundry Mach. Co. v. Washex Mach. Corp., 854 S.W.2d 297 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1993).published
  • Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp. v. City of Houston, 857 S.W.2d 731 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1993).published
  • In the Interest of Van Hersh, 662 S.W.2d 141 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 1983).published
  • Gipson v. Sw. Oil Co. of San Antonio, 604 S.W.2d 396 (Tex. Civ. App.—Tyler 1980).published
  • Mata v. Ruiz, 640 S.W.2d 415 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1982).published
  • Adams v. Isbell, 615 S.W.2d 254 (Tex. Civ. App.—Dallas 1981).published
  • Am. Bankers Ins. Co. of Florida v. State, 765 S.W.2d 875 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1989).published
  • North v. Lawrence, 841 S.W.2d 540 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1992).published
  • Brenan v. LaMotte, 441 S.W.2d 626 (Tex. App. 1969).published
152 S.W.2d at 1098 Interpreting statutes liberally in favor of right of appeal18 citing casesstatutes giving and regulating the right of appeal . . . should be liberally construed in favor of the right of appeal1 citing court put it this way · 17 listed here
Show 7 more citing cases
  • Bisby v. Dow Chem. Co., 931 S.W.2d 18 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1996).published
    Lawyers Lloyds of Texas v. Webb, 152 S.W.2d 1096, 1098 (Tex.1941). “[I]t is the fact of nonparticipation, not the reason for it, that determines the right to appeal by writ of error.” Texaco, Inc. v. Central Power & Light Co., 925 S.W.2d 5…
  • Ramirez v. Lyford Consol. Indep. Sch. Dist., 900 S.W.2d 902 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1995).published 3 cites
    Lawyers Lloyds of Texas v. Webb, 137 Tex. 107 , 152 S.W.2d 1096, 1098 (1941); Classic Promotions, Inc. v. Shafer, 846 S.W.2d 948, 951 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1993, no writ).
  • Texaco, Inc. v. Cent. Power & Light Co., 897 S.W.2d 854 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1995).published 12 cites
    Lawyers Lloyds of Texas v. Webb, 152 S.W.2d at 1097-98 (citations omitted).
  • Noriega v. Cueves, 879 S.W.2d 192 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1994).published
    “those who should reasonably use the more speedy method of appeal”
  • Schnitzius v. Koons, 813 S.W.2d 213 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1991).published 2 cites
    Lawyers Lloyds of Texas v. Webb, 152 S.W.2d 1096, 1098 (Tex.1941).
  • Stubbs v. Stubbs, 654 S.W.2d 838 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1983).published
  • Boyd v. Dean, 515 S.W.2d 753 (Tex. Civ. App.—Beaumont 1974).published
137 Tex. at 110 “the actual trial of a case, as ordinarily understood by the legal profession, is the hearing in open court, leading up to the rendition of judgment, on the questions of law, if the case is disposed of on the questions of law, or on the questions of fact, if the final judgment is rendered on the fac…”0 citing cases6 citing courts quote it
    Quoted next to this citation, but not language from this opinion
    “A trial on the merits is any final adjudication from which an appeal may be taken to a court of appeals.”quoted beside the cite; not in this opinion · 2 citing cases listed
    • In Re Ief, 345 S.W.3d 637 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2011).published 2 cites
      “A trial on the merits is any final adjudication from which an appeal may be taken to a court of appeals.”
    • In Re in the Interest of I.E.F., 345 S.W.3d 637 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2011).published 2 cites
      “A trial on the merits is any final adjudication from which an appeal may be taken to a court of appeals.”
    Lawyers Lloyds of Texas
    v.
    Juanita Webb
    No. 7864.
    Texas Supreme Court.
    Jun 25, 1941.
    Published opinion
    152 S.W.2d 1096
    1941 Tex. LEXIS 227
    Currie McCutcheon and Bruce Graham, both of Dallas, for plaintiff in error., L. W. Shepperd and B. L. Bradley, both of Groesbeck, for defendants in error.
    Alexander.
    Cited by 123 opinions  |  Published
    1 passages pin-cited by 2 cases
    Pinpoint authority: #40,273 of 633,719
    Citer courts: Court of Appeals of Texas (2)
    Mr. Chief Justice Alexander

    delivered the opinion of the Court.

    J. F. Russell and wife brought this suit against Juanita Webb and others to recover a tract of land. Juanita Webb reconvened and sequestered the property. Thereupon Russell and wife replevied the property, Lawyers Lloyds of Texas and others being sureties on the replevy bond. The trial court rendered judgment against Russell and wife and the sureties on said bond. Said sureties on the replevy bond, who are the plaintiffs herein, attempted to appeal to the Court of Civil Appeals by writ of error, but their appeal was dismissed by the Court of Civil Appeals on the theory that they had participated in the trial of the case, and were therefore not entitled to appeal by writ of error. 150 S. W. (2d) 181.

    Acts of 1939, 46th Leg., p. 59, read as follows:

    [*110] “Section 1. No party who participates either in person or by his attorney in the actual trial of the case in the trial court shall be entitled to review by the Court of Civil Appeals through means of writ of error.
    “Sec. 2. All laws and parts of laws, insofar as they conflict with this Act, are repealed. Writ of error shall continue to be available under the rules and regulations of the law to a party who does not participate in the trial of the case in the trial court.
    “Sec. 4. The need that delay of justice be not caused by parties who should reasonably use appeal instead of writ of error and the near approach of the end of the session creates an emergency and an imperative public necessity that the Constitutional Rule requiring bills to be read on three several days be suspended, and said Rule is suspended and this Act shall, take effect from and after its passage, and it is so enacted.”

    Lawyers Lloyds of Texas and the other plaintiffs in error took no part in the trial of the case prior to the rendition of final judgment, and were not represented therein, except in so far as they were represented as a matter of law through the presence and participation of the plaintiffs, Russell and wife, for whom they were sureties. They did file a motion for new trial.

    1, 2 It will be- noted that the statute above quoted does not undertake to take away the right of appeal by writ of error entirely. It denies that right only to one “who participates either in person or by his attorney in the actual trial of the case.” (Italics ours.) Ordinarily, the “trial” includes every step taken in the destination of the issues between the parties, and therefore includes the hearing on a motion for new trial. Gulf, C. & S. F. R. Co. v. Muse, 109 Texas 352, 207 S. W. 897, 4 A. L. R. 613; Pratley v. Sherwin-Williams Co. of Texas (Com. App.), 36 S. W. (2d) 195. But by the use of the term “actual trial” the Legislature evidently intended to limit or restrict the meaning of the word “trial.” The actual trial of a case, as ordinarily undersood by the legal profession, is the hearing in open court, leading up to the rendition of judgment, on the questions of law, if the case is disposed of on the questions of law, or on the questions of fact, if the final judgment is rendered on the facts. The statute was intended to cut off the right of appeal by writ of error of those who participate in the[*111] hearing in open court in the trial that leads to final judgment. It was not intended to cut off the right of those who discover that a judgment has been rendered against them after the judgment has been rendered, and who participate only to the extent of seeking a new trial.

    3 There was good reason for making a distinction between those who participate in the hearing in open court, leading up to the rendition of judgment, and those who do not so participate. The statute allows a short period of time for the presentation of an appeal and a longer period for the suing out of a writ of error. Revised Civil Statutes 1925, Arts. 2253 and 2255. The legislative purpose was to take away the right of appeal by writ of error from those who should reasonably use the more speedy method of appeal. Those who participate in the trial leading up to the rendition of judgment are familiar with the record, and are therefore in position to prepare for appeal on short notice; whereas, those who do not so participate in the actual trial, and are therefore unfamiliar with the record, may need additional time in which to familiarize themselves with the record. For example: One who participates in the hearing of the evidence will be familiar with the facts introduced upon the trial and can immediately begin the preparation of his appeal; whereas, one who does not so participate may have to wait until the reporter can prepare a statement of facts before he can properly prepare his appeal for presentation to the appellate court. A party who did not participate in the hearing leading up to the rendition of judgment, but merely filed a motion for new trial, would be no more familiar with the record in most instances, than one who did not so file a motion for new trial. We hold that the mere filing of a motion for new trial was not such participation in the actual trial of the case as to defeat the plaintiffs in error’s right of appeal by writ of error.

    4 We also hold that the plaintiffs in error, as sureties on the replevy bond, did not participate in the actual trial of the case “either in person or by his attorney,” within the meaning of the Act, merely because their principal so participated. It is true that the sureties on the replevy bond are parties to the suit in a limited sense, so as to authorize judgment against them on their bond in the event of a judgment against their principal; but, ordinarily, in the absence of default on the part of the principal or an allegation of fraud, collusion, or the like, such sureties must leave the conduct of the case to their[*112] principal. 38 Tex. Jur. 197; Wandelohr v. Grayson County National Bank, 102 Texas 20, 108 S. W. 1154, 112 S. W. 1046; Hawkins v. First National Bank, 175 S. W. 168. Consequently, even though their principal participated in the trial, the sureties on the replevy bond did not do so within the meaning of the Act.

    5 Moreover, the statute here under consideration is at least open to the consrtuction which we have given it. It is well settled in this State that statues giving and regulaing the right of appeal are recognized as remedial in their nature, and, in case of doubtful construction, should be liberally construed in favor of the right of appeal thereunder. Pratley v. Sherwin-Williams Co. of Texas (Com. App.), 36 S. W. (2d) 195, par. 3; Parks v. Prunnell, 135 Texas 182, 141 S. W. (2d) 585, par. 3.

    It follows that the Court of Civil Appeals erred in dismissing the appeal.

    However, the fact that we hold that the sureties on the replevy bond have a right to so appeal should not be construed as a holding that such sureties may raise on appeal any error that might be raised by their principal. That question is not before us. In this connection see 38 Tex. Jur. 247; Wandelohr v. Grayson County National Bank, supra.

    The judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals is reversed, and the cause is remanded to that court with instructions to proceed with the hearing of the case not inconsistent with this opinion.

    Opinion delivered June 25, 1941.