Finova Capital Corporation v. Harold R. Collins, D/B/A Collins Pharmacy, and Harold R. Collins

In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

______________________________

No. 06-05-00108-CV

______________________________

FINOVA CAPITAL CORPORATION, Appellant

 

V.

 

HAROLD R. COLLINS, D/B/A COLLINS PHARMACY,

AND HAROLD R. COLLINS, Appellees

---

                                              

On Appeal from the 115th Judicial District Court

Upshur County, Texas

Trial Court No. 652-03

---

                                                 

Before Morriss, C.J., Ross and Carter, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Carter

MEMORANDUM OPINION

            Finova Capital Corporation has filed an appeal from an order dismissing its lawsuit for want of prosecution signed June 11, 2005, by the 115th Judicial District Court in Upshur County. According to the information provided by appellant in the docketing statement with this Court, the record was due to be filed on or before November 9, 2005. Appellant is not indigent, and is thus responsible for paying or making adequate arrangements to pay the clerk's fees for preparing the record. See Tex. R. App. P. 37.3(b). On December 12, 2005, we contacted counsel by letter, reminding her that the clerk's record was over thirty days past due, and warning that, if we did not receive an adequate response within ten days, we would dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution pursuant to Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b), (c).

            As of the date of this opinion, we have received no response. We also contacted the district clerk, who informed us that appellant has not sought to have a clerk's record prepared. The record is now sixty days past due.

            We dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution.

 

                                                                        Jack Carter

                                                                        Justice

 

Date Submitted:          January 11, 2006

Date Decided:             January 12, 2006

"63" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 1"/>

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In The

  Court of Appeals

                        Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

 

                                                ______________________________

 

                                                             No. 06-10-00066-CV

                                                ______________________________

 

 

                                        CORDELL MOODY, Appellant

 

                                                                V.

 

        JOHN SPIVEY AND PROBATION BOARD OF DALLAS, Appellees

 

 

                                                                                                  

 

 

                                       On Appeal from the 276th Judicial District Court

                                                            Marion County, Texas

                                                          Trial Court No. 1000075

 

                                                                                                   

 

 

                                          Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ.

                                            Memorandum Opinion by Justice Moseley

                                                     MEMORANDUM  OPINION

 

            This is an appeal filed by Cordell Moody. He states in his notice of appeal that he is appealing from a final judgment in civil cause number 1000075 in the 276th Judicial District Court of Marion County, Texas.  We have contacted the district clerk, and have determined that no order has been entered in this case and no judgment has been rendered.  No justiciable action has been taken by the trial court in this case.  Thus, there is nothing from which an appeal might be brought. 

            The constitution vests jurisdiction over appeals from final judgments of district and county courts in the courts of appeals, subject to restrictions and regulations prescribed by law.  Tex. Const. art. V, § 6; Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014 (Vernon 2008).

            Because there is no order or judgment in this case from which an appeal may be taken, the jurisdiction of this Court has not been invoked.  Accordingly, we dismiss Moody’s appeal for want of jurisdiction.

 

 

                                                                        Bailey C. Moseley

                                                                        Justice

 

Date Submitted:          September 2, 2010

Date Decided:             September 3, 2010