
    J. M. McKenzie et al. v. Mrs. V. F. Withers et al.
    No. 2543.
    Opinion delivered. November 13, 1918.
    Commission of Appeals—Supreme Court—Effect of Adoption of Judgment.
    In adopting the judgments recommended by the Commission of Appeals: in eases referred to them under the Act of April 3, 1918 (Laws, 35th Leg., 4thi Called Session, p. 171), the Supreme Court is not to be understood as approve ing the opinion of the Commission in the particular case or the reasons given therein for its conclusion. Such action simply adopts the view of the Ccunrmission.as to the determination to be made of the case. (P. 256.)
    Error to the Court of Civil Appeals for the Sixth District, in an. appeal from Tarrant County.
    Action was brought by William Linden against Mrs. Withers and another, for injunction to restrain sale of land under execution. Judgment was rendered dissolving the injunction and awarding recovery in favor of Mrs. Withers against plaintiff and J. M. and E. W. McKenzie, the sureties on her injunction bond, for the amount of the debt of which collection had been restrained. From this judgment the sureties appealed. The Court of Civil Appeals dismissed their appeal on the ground that the judgment below was interlocutory, and not final. (152 S. W., 658.) Thereupon the McKenzies obtained writ of error. The case being referred to the Commission of Appeals, section B, it was then on opinion by Montgomery, P. J. .(206 S. W., 503), recommended that the judgment appealed from he reversed and the cause remanded to the Court of Civil Appeals for determination on the merits. In adopting the judgment recommended, the Supreme Court delivered the opinion following.
    
      Goree & Turner, for plaintiffs in error.
    
      Jas. C. Scott, for defendants in error.
   Mr. Chief Justice PHILLIPS

delivered the opinion of the court.

Under the Act of the Thirty-fifth Legislature establishing a Commission of Appeals, this cause was heretofore referred to section B of the Commission by the Supreme Court. It has been duly heard and considered by the Commission. Its report and conclusions upon the case embodied in a written opinion by Presiding Judge Montgomery, together with the record, have been fully examined by us and the judgment recommended by the Commission has our approval. The cause will be disposed of accordingly.

We take this occasion to announce that in causes referred to the Commission of Appeals our approval of the judgment recommended by the Commission is to be understood as having no further effect than to simply adopt the view of the Commission as to the determination to be made of the cause. It is not to be construed as an approval by the Supreme Court of the opinion of the Commission in the particular case, or the reasons given in the Commission’s opinion for its conclusion.

We have adopted this course in the interest of a prompt disposition of the court’s docket. The Act does not in our opinion require the Supreme Court’s approval of the Commission’s opinion in causes referred to it and in which the judgment as recommended by the Commission is adopted by the court. The approval by the court of the Commission’s opinions, in addition to the judgments recommended by it, would impose an extra duty upon the court and require a large part of its time. Under existing conditions, the proper dispatch of the court’s business forbids our exercising a province in these cases not required by the Act.

In accordance with the report of the Commission, the judgment of the honorable Court of Civil Appeals in this cause is reversed and the cause is remanded to that court for disposition upon its merits.

Reversed and remanded.  