<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="WordPerfect 9">
<TITLE></TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY TEXT="#000000" LINK="#0000ff" VLINK="#551a8b" ALINK="#ff0000" BGCOLOR="#c0c0c0">

<P><SPAN STYLE="font-size: 14pt"><STRONG><CENTER>TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN</STRONG></SPAN></CENTER>
</P>

<BR WP="BR1"><BR WP="BR2">
<BR WP="BR1"><BR WP="BR2">
<P><HR ALIGN="CENTER" WIDTH="26%">
</P>
<STRONG><CENTER>NO. 03-9<A NAME="1">7</A>-00<A NAME="2">317</A>-CV</CENTER>
</STRONG>

<P><HR ALIGN="CENTER" WIDTH="26%">
</P>


<STRONG></STRONG><CENTER><A NAME="3">James R. Westmoreland</A>, Appellant</CENTER>


<BR WP="BR1"><BR WP="BR2">
<P><STRONG><CENTER>v.</CENTER>
</STRONG></P>

<BR WP="BR1"><BR WP="BR2">
<P><STRONG><CENTER><A NAME="4">Nancy S. Westmoreland</A>, Appellee</CENTER>
</STRONG></P>

<BR WP="BR1"><BR WP="BR2">
<BR WP="BR1"><BR WP="BR2">
<P><STRONG><HR SIZE="3">
</STRONG></P>
<SPAN STYLE="font-size: 11pt"><STRONG><CENTER>FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF <A NAME="5">TRAVIS</A> COUNTY, <A NAME="6">201ST</A> JUDICIAL DISTRICT</CENTER>
</STRONG></SPAN>

<P><SPAN STYLE="font-size: 11pt"><STRONG><CENTER>NO. <A NAME="7">96-14182</A>, HONORABLE <A NAME="8">MARGARET A. COOPER</A>, JUDGE PRESIDING </STRONG></SPAN><STRONG></CENTER>
</STRONG></P>

<P><STRONG><HR SIZE="3">
</STRONG></P>


<STRONG>PER CURIAM</STRONG>

<BR WP="BR1"><BR WP="BR2">
<P>	A final judgment was rendered in the cause on January 21, 1997.  A motion for new trial
was filed on February 13, 1997.  The timely filed motion extended the appellate timetable to the first
business day after ninety days had expired, or to April 22, 1997.  Tex. R. App. P. 41(a)(1).  Appellant
James R. Westmoreland did not file a perfecting instrument until May 16, 1997, which is outside the ninety-day deadline.</P>

<P>	Appellant submitted a motion to continue the appeal that explains that he believed the
perfecting instrument could be filed 120 days after the judgment was signed.  A timely filed perfecting
instrument is jurisdictional.  <EM>Davies v. Massey</EM>, 561 S.W.2d 799, 801 (Tex. 1978).  Even a mistaken belief
regarding the deadline does not excuse the timely filing of a perfecting instrument.</P>

<BR WP="BR1"><BR WP="BR2">
<P>	Accordingly, we overrule appellant's motion to continue the appeal and dismiss his two
motions for extension of time to file a brief.  We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.</P>

<BR WP="BR1"><BR WP="BR2">
<P>Before Chief Justices Carroll, Justices Aboussie and B. A. Smith</P>

<P>Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction</P>

<P>Filed:   August 28, 1997</P>

<P>Do Not Publish</P>

</BODY>
</HTML>
