elizabeth-c-brent-v-martha-c-field-j-j-cattle-family-limited ( 2008 )

NO. 07-08-0065-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL E

DECEMBER 30, 2008

______________________________

ELIZABETH C. BRENT, APPELLANT

v.

MARTHA C. FIELD, J & J CATTLE FAMILY

LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, AMERICAN EXPRESS

TRAVEL RELATED SERVICES COMPANY, AND

THOMAS & WATSON TRUCKING, INC., APPELLEES

_________________________________

FROM THE 69^TH DISTRICT COURT OF HARTLEY COUNTY;

NO. 4300 H; HON. RONALD E. ENNS, PRESIDING

_______________________________

Before CAMPBELL and PIRTLE, JJ., and BOYD, S.J.

ORDER

          Before us are the second motion of appellant Elizabeth C. Brent to review security for supersedeas and motion for injunction, filed in this appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 24.4; Sonny Arnold, Inc. v. Sentry Sav. Ass’n, 602 S.W.2d 90, 91 (Tex.App.–Amarillo 1980, orig. proceeding) (appellate court empowered to issue writs necessary to enforce its jurisdiction). Following oral argument of Brent’s motions, on July 7, 2008, we issued an order that, inter alia, required the Hartley County District Clerk to retain the funds that are the subject of Brent’s motions in an interest-bearing account until further order of this Court. We neither granted nor denied the further relief requested by Brent’s motions. The parties have complied with our July 7 order.  

          We have this day issued an opinion and judgment disposing of the merits of Brent’s appeal. Our opinion and judgment contain instructions for a limited remand of the case, and for issuance of a new judgment of the trial court after its determination of the matters subject to the remand. Our opinion and judgment also contain instructions for the issuance of an order of the trial court providing for distribution of the funds in the court’s registry.

          Finding that the concerns Brent expressed in her motions have adequately been addressed by the relief granted Brent by our order of July 7, coupled with the instructions in our opinion and judgment on the merits of her appeal, we will deny further relief under the second motion and motion for injunction.   

          It is so ordered.

Per Curiam