david-henke-individually-and-dba-breslau-cattle-company-v-people-state ( 2004 )

    NUMBER 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, Yañez, 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 26^th day of February, 2004.