Back to Main Page / Back to List of Rules
Rule 571. Appeal Bond
The party appealing, his agent or attorney, shall within ten days from the date of the judgment, or order overruling motion for new trial, file with the justice a bond, with two or more good and sufficient sureties, to be approved by the justice, in double the amount of the judgment, payable to the appellee, conditioned that appellant shall prosecute his appeal to effect, and shall pay off and satisfy the judgment which may be rendered against him on appeal. When such bond has been filed with the justice, the appeal shall be held to be thereby perfected and all parties to said suit or to any suit so appealed shall make their appearance at the next term of court to which said case has been appealed without further notice. The appeal shall not be dismissed for defects or irregularities in procedure, either of form or substance, without allowing appellant five (5) days after notice within which to correct or amend same.
Source: Art. 2456 and Art. 2457 (part).
Change: Allowing ten days from order overruling motion for new trial during which appeal bond may be filed. Transfer to this rule of provision of Art. 2457 prohibiting dismissals for defects without allowing time to amend.
Oct. 29, 1940, eff. Sept. 1, 1941.
April 12, 1962, eff. Sept. 1, 1962
July 20, 1966, eff. Jan. 1, 1967
June 10, 1980, eff. Jan. 1, 1981
April 24, 1990, eff. Sept. 1, 1990. Repealed by order of April 15, 2013, eff. Aug. 31, 2013.
(No. 103) Question: “Rule 751, one of the special rules for forcible detainer cases, does not set any appearance day but gives the case precedence on the County Court docket. Does not Rule 571 make appearance day as to such cases the first day of the next term of county court in the event of appeal from the justice of the county court?
Answer: Yes. See opinions of this subcommittee, 5 Tex. B.J. 53 (3 rd opinion) and 168 (No. 21) We beg, however, to call to your attention the fact that this rule is reversed by the amendment to Rule 753 which will come into effect at the end of the present year (1943). That amendment reads, "Said cause shall be subject to trial at any time after the expiration of five full days after the day the transcript is filed in the county court, and if defendant shall fail to enter his appearance therein before the case is called for trial, the allegations of the complainant may be taken as admitted, and judgment by default may be entered accordingly."
6 Tex. B.J. 500 (1943) reprinted in 8 Tex. B.J. 37 (1945).
(No. 119) Question: In a case tried in the justice court, the losing party filed an appeal bond, approved by the justice of the peace, which was regular in manner and form and conditioned as required by law. It recited, however, that the appeal had been taken to the county court. The civil jurisdiction of the county court had been abolished and the appeal lay to the district court, to which the transcript was sent by the justice of the peace and there filed in due time. Appellee filed a motion to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the district court had no jurisdiction because it appeared from the recitals in the appeal bond that the appeal had been taken to the county court. Appellant, invoking Rule 571, moved the court to allow him five days within which to prepare and file an amended appeal bond to correct the error in the original bond. Should the appeal be dismissed or should the appellant be allowed five days within which to file an amended bond?
Answer: We are of the opinion that appellant should be allowed five days within which to file an amended bond. Under Rule 571 the appeal was perfected by filing the bond with the justice of the peace. The transcript an appeal was lodged in due time in the court which had jurisdiction of the appeal. All parties to the suit were aware of this fact. They were required by the rule to make their appearance at the next term of the court "without further notice." The appellee did in fact make his appearance in due time in the court which actually had jurisdiction of the appeal. He was, therefore, not surprised nor had he sustained any injury by reason of the defect and irregularity in the bond which was manifestly due to a clerical error and it probably resulted from the use of a printed form.
The rules of civil procedure, in their general scope, manifest the clear intent of the Supreme Court that appeals shall not be dismissed for clerical errors or for defects in mere form or substance when they can be cured by amendment, particularly where no injury results to the adverse party. Rule 481 relating to the Supreme Court provides that the application, or brief of the argument in support thereof, or reply thereto may be amended at any time when justice requires and specifically provides that the record and the appeal bond may be amended in the Supreme Court precisely as the same could be done in the Court of Civil Appeals under Rules 428, 429, 430 and 431. These rules established a new and wholesome procedure. They were adapted to prevent injustice and the denial of the substantive rights of parties which had often theretofore resulted from undue subservience to mere legal form.
We are also of the opinion that the matter is not jurisdictional. It has been held that an informal or defective bond not objected to may confer jurisdiction. Tynberg v. Cohen, 67 Tex. 220, 2 S.W. 734 (1887); Southern Pac. Co. v. Staley, 76 Tex. 418, 13 S.W. 480 (1890); Ricker v. Collins, 81 Tex. 662, 17 S.W. 378 (1891). Irregularities in a bond are waived by an appearance and amendment of pleadings and delay in making a motion to dismiss and such defects may be waived by continuance by consent. Cason v. Laney, 82 Tex. 317, 18 S.W. 667 (1891); Casan v. Westfall, 83 Tex. 26, 18 S.W. 668 (1892); Futch v. Palmer, 11 Tex.Civ.App. 191, 32 S.W. 566 (1895). There is no sound reason why, in the circumstances stated, the appellant should not be allowed time within which to file an amended bond and we think Rule 571 requires that it be done.
7 Tex. B.J. 80 (1944) reprinted in 8 Tex. B.J. 44 (1945).COMMENTS FROM USERS
I found additional information about the history of TRCP Rule 571 that may be of interest to you. All sources I have checked (i.e. Vernon’s, O’Connor’s, your website, etc.) list the source of Rule 571 as “Art. 2456 and Art. 2457 (part).” But the last sentence of Rule 571 is not part of those Articles; namely:
“The appeal shall not be dismissed for defects or irregularities in procedure, either of form or substance, without allowing appellant five days after notice within which to correct or amend same.”
This last sentence appears to be new to the Rules of Civil Procedure when first enacted in September 1, 1941.
I found case law that talks about the source of that sentence: Hervey v. Forse, 253 S.W.2d 701, 703 (Tex.Civ.App.—Beaumont, 1952). The relevant text is as follows:
“. . . it is to be noted that the concluding sentence of T.R. 571 has its source in Acts 1931, 42nd Legislature, Ch. 134, §2, amending Art. 2457, R.S.1925. This amendment was made after the Commission decided Ringgold v. Graham . . .”