
    Hargadine-McKittrick Dry Goods Company v. First National Bank of Jacksboro.
    Decided October 8, 1896.
    Practice in Supreme Court—Writ of Error—Conclusions of Law and Fact.
    The Supreme Court will not consider an application for writ of error in a case which the Court of Civil Appeals has affirmed without filing conclusions of law and fact therein; but will allow the applicant time within which to procure and file such conclusions.
    Application for writ of error to the Court of Civil Appeals for Second District, in an appeal from Clay County.
    The application for writ of error showed that plaintiff in error in a suit against Steed Bros, had seized cattle, of the value of $750, by writ of attachment. Defendant in error claimed the cattle, gave bond and took possession, and on trial of the right of property, in the District Court of Clay County, judgment was rendered for claimant. On appeal from this judgment, prosecuted by the plaintiffs in attachment, the judgment of the District Court was affirmed without written opinion or findings of fact and law.
    Ro briefs have reached the Reporter.
   GAINES, Chief Justice.

It appears from the application for writ of error in this case that no conclusions of law and fact have been filed by the Court of Civil Appeals. Without such conclusions the application cannot he considered in this court. Burnett v. Powell, 86 Texas, 382. In accordance with the ruling in the case cited, defendant will be allowed twenty days within which to procure and file conclusions of law and fact by the Court of Civil Appeals; and for this purpose, if requested by counsel for the applicant, the clerk of this court will transmit to the clerk of the Court of Civil Appeals the transcript and original papers in the case.

Twenty days’ time allowed in which to file conclusions of law and fact.  