David Henke, Individually and d/ba Breslau Cattle Company, et al. v. People State Bank of Hallettsville, Texas, Prairie Livestock, L.L.C., Hale County State Bank, First State Bank of Smithville, Texas, and Stanley D. Bujnoch, Jr.--Appeal from 25th District Court of Lavaca County
Annotate this CaseNUMBER 13-03-524-CV
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
___________________________________________________________________
DAVID HENKE, INDIVIDUALLY AND D/B/A
BRESLAU CATTLE COMPANY, ET AL., Appellants,
v.
PEOPLE STATE BANK OF HALLETTSVILLE,
TEXAS, ET AL., Appellees.
___________________________________________________________________
On appeal from the 25th District Court
of Lavaca County, Texas.
___________________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Hinojosa, Ya ez, and Garza
Opinion Per Curiam
Appellants, DAVID HENKE, INDIVIDUALLY AND D/B/A BRESLAU CATTLE COMPANY, ET AL., perfected an appeal from a judgment entered by the 25th District Court of Lavaca County, Texas, in cause number 97-08-17,960-CV. No clerk s record has been filed due to appellant s failure to pay or make arrangements to pay the clerk s fee for preparing the clerk s record.
If the trial court clerk fails to file the clerk s record because the appellant failed to pay or make arrangements to pay the clerk s fee for preparing the clerk s record, the appellate court may dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution unless the appellant was entitled to proceed without payment of costs. Tex. R. App. P. 37.3(b).
On November 14, 2003, notice was given to all parties that this appeal was subject to dismissal pursuant to Tex. R. App. P. 37.3(b). Appellants were given ten days to explain why the cause should not be dismissed. To date, no response has been received from appellants.
The Court, having examined and fully considered the documents on file, appellants failure to pay or make arrangements to pay the clerk s fee for preparing the clerk s record, this Court s notice, and appellants failure to respond, is of the opinion that the appeal should be dismissed for want of prosecution. The appeal is hereby DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION.
PER CURIAM
Opinion delivered and filed
this the 26th day of February, 2004.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.