Douglas et al. v. Parish, District Judge

Full title: FRANK DOUGLAS ET AL. v. HONORABLE O. L. PARISH, DISTRICT JUDGE

Court: Supreme Court of Texas

Date published: Jun 30, 1934

72 S.W.2d 591 (Tex. 1934)

72 S.W.2d 591

Opinion

No. 6272.

Decided June 30, 1934. Motion for Rehearing Overruled October 24, 1934.

Mandamus — Parties.

Mandamus will not issue in a case where a real party in interest whose rights would be affected thereby is not made a party to the proceedings.

Original proceedings in mandamus by Frank Douglas and others to compel the Honorable O. L. Parish, Judge of the District Court of Tom Green County to render judgment in a certain cause pending in that court.

Case was referred to the Commission of Appeals, Section A, for their opinion thereon and the Supreme Court adopted same and ordered the entry of judgment in accordance therewith.

Mandamus dismissed.

Robert P. Brown, James Cornell, R. G. Hughes, and W. A. Anderson, all of San Angelo, for relators.

Kerr Geyer, and Geo. T. Wilson, all of San Angelo, for respondent.

MR. PRESIDING JUDGE HARVEY delivered the opinion of Commission of Appeals, Section A.

This is an original proceeding for mandamus instituted in the Supreme Court by the relators, Frank Douglas and others, against the Honorable O. L. Parish, Judge of the District Court of Tom Green County, to compel the latter to render and enter judgment in a certain cause pending in said court, in which the relators are the defendants and the First National Bank of Eldorado, Texas, is plaintiff. It appears that said cause came on for trial before a jury in said court, and that a number of special issues were submitted to the jury. The jury, it is alleged, reached an agreement as to what answers they would make to some of said special issues, but were unable to reach an agreement in respect to the others. The mandamus is sought against Judge Parish to compel him to render and enter judgment for the defendants in said cause, in accordance with the answer to such of the special issues in respect to which the jury is alleged to have reached an agreement. Even if meritorious grounds for mandamus were shown, still the writ should not issue for the reason that a real party in interest whose rights would be affected — namely, the First National Bank of Eldorado — is not a party to the present proceeding. City of Houston v. Allred, 123 Tex. 35, 66 S.W.2d 655.

The petition for mandamus is dismissed.

Opinion adopted by the Supreme Court June 30, 1934.