The Law Lion Logo - AI-powered legal writing assistantThe Law Lion
Home
Features
Pricing
Services
AboutBlogCasesContact
Login
Ask Law Lion AI
  1. Home
  2. >Cases
  3. >Dilworth v. Ed. Steves & Sons
Texas Supreme Court

Dilworth v. Ed Steves Sons — Case Summary

Application No. 9069.·Judge: Phillips·Attorney: J.S. Hill and Gordon Bullitt, for applicants. C.R. Edwards and Templeton, Brooks, Napier Ogden, for defendants in error, on motion to dismiss.0 citations·Filed March 10, 1915

Table of Contents

  • Summary of the case Dilworth v. Ed. Steves & Sons
  • Key Issues of the case Dilworth v. Ed. Steves & Sons
  • Key Facts of the case Dilworth v. Ed. Steves & Sons
  • Decision of the case Dilworth v. Ed. Steves & Sons
  • Opinions
  • Opinions
  • The case was tried in the District Court of Bexar County for the Seventy-thir...

Table of Contents

  • Summary of the case Dilworth v. Ed. Steves & Sons
  • Key Issues of the case Dilworth v. Ed. Steves & Sons
  • Key Facts of the case Dilworth v. Ed. Steves & Sons
  • Decision of the case Dilworth v. Ed. Steves & Sons
  • Opinions
  • Opinions
  • The case was tried in the District Court of Bexar County for the Seventy-thir...

Summary of the case Dilworth v. Ed. Steves & Sons

The case was tried in the District Court of Bexar County, beginning October 6, 1913, and ending November 29, 1913. The plaintiffs filed an appeal bond on December 29, 1913, which was more than twenty days after the term ended, making it untimely. Consequently, the Court of Civil Appeals lacked jurisdiction over the appeal, and the application for writ of error was dismissed.

Key Issues of the case Dilworth v. Ed. Steves & Sons

  • Timeliness of appeal bond filing
  • Jurisdiction of the Court of Civil Appeals

Key Facts of the case Dilworth v. Ed. Steves & Sons

  • The appeal bond was filed more than twenty days after the term ended.
  • The Court of Civil Appeals was not made aware of the late filing.

Decision of the case Dilworth v. Ed. Steves & Sons

Dismissed

Opinions

The case was tried in the District Court of Bexar County for the Seventy-third Judicial District at a term beginning October 6, 1913, and ending November 29, 1913, and which could not by law continue more than eight weeks. The appeal bond of the plaintiffs in error was filed in the trial court December 29, 1913, more than twenty days after the expiration of the term. It was, therefore, filed too late. Rev.

Stats., art. 2084. The matter does not appear to have been brought to the attention of the Court of Civil Appeals, but the bond not having been filed in time, it was without jurisdiction of the appeal, as is this court of the application for writ of error, which is accordingly dismissed. El Paso Northwestern Ry. Co. v.

Whatley, 99 Tex. 128 [99 Tex. 128], 87 S.W. 819.

The Law Lion logoThe Law Lion.

The Law Lion is the only platform combining AI legal writing grounded in real case law with an expert human writing service — serving attorneys, paralegals, and everyday people nationwide.

info@thelawlion.com
Mon–Fri 9am–6pm EST · Rush available
Serving Clients Nationwide

AI Tool

  • → AI Legal Writing Tool
  • → AI Document Drafting
  • → Motion Drafting
  • → Contract Drafting
  • → Legal Research
  • → Case Law Search
  • → Citation Generator
  • → Document Review
  • → Contract Review
  • → For Lawyers

Writing Service

  • → Eviction Defense
  • → Court Documents
  • → Custody & Family
  • → Divorce Documents
  • → Debt & Collections
  • → All Writing Services

Top Guides

  • → Eviction Response Guide
  • → Best AI Legal Tools 2026
  • → Debt Validation Letter Guide

Company

  • → About The Law Lion
  • → Client Results
  • → Transparent Pricing
  • → Legal Guides & Blog
  • → Contact & Free Consult
  • → Affiliate Program

Top Services

  • → Eviction Notice Response
  • → Debt Validation Letter
  • → Court Summons Response
© 2026 The Law Lion LLC · AI Legal Writing & Expert Document Service
Privacy PolicyTerms of ServiceSitemap