Source: http://www.stcl.edu/lib/TexasRulesProject/TRCP352-473/rule437Dec1941.htm
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 03:56:52+00:00

Document:
A judgment shall not be affirmed or reversed or an appeal dismissed for defects or irregularities in appellate procedure, either of form or substance, without allowing a reasonable time to correct or amend such defects or irregularities, provided the court may make no enlargement of time prohibited by Rule 5 nor any enlargement of the time for filing transcript and statement of facts except as contemplated by Rule 386.
Amended by order of Sept. 20, 1941, eff. Dec. 31, 1941: The rule has been redrafted and material changes have been made therin, by rewording the caption so as to extend to affirmance and to substance and by extending the text of the rule in the same manner, by confining the text of the rule to "appellant" procedure, and by adding he proviso at the end of the rule.
(No. 42) Question: Where there is not a complete statement of facts on appeal will all reasonable presumptions be indulged in favor of the judgment of the lower court as was the rule under the former practice?
Answer: Our correspondent, in support of his view of the law under the former practice cites inter alia: O'Brien v. Hart, 80 S.W.2d 464 (Tex. Civ. App.-Beaumont, 1935); Sawyer v. First Nat'l Bank of Hico, 41 Tex.Civ.App. 486, 498, 93 S.W. 151, 158 (1906); Newnom v. Williamson, 46 Tex.Civ.App. 615, 103 S.W. 656 (1907).
The subcommittee is of the opinion that the presumption referred to would not apply under the new rules.
Our correspondent observes that: "If this same presumption should be indulged under the new rules, we would defeat the very purpose intended to be accomplished by authorizing the filing of only a partial statement of facts."
This observation seems to the subcommittee to be correct in the light of wording in the rules which is now recited.
"In view of the crowded condition of the dockets of the appellate courts, the record and briefs on appeal should be limited as far as possible to the questions relied on for reversal. The primary purpose of the courts is to administer justice between the parties with as little expense and delay as possible. Liberal provisions are therefore made in these rules for amendments' on appeal to bring forward any material matter which may have been omitted. With this protection the bar is expected to cooperate in shortening the records in furtherance of the provisions of these rules."
Pursuant to this purpose, Rule 377, respecting the statement of facts, requires that: "All matters not essential to the decision of the questions presented on appeal shall be omitted."
At a later point the same rule, carrying out this policy, reads that: " ... the appellant shall deliver or mail to the appellee or his counsel and file with the clerk of the court a designation in writing of the portions of the evidence desired, and shall specify the portions desired in narrative form, if any, and the portions desired in question and answer form, if any, and the portions that are desired to be omitted. Within ten days thereafter any other party to the appeal may file a designation in writing of any additional portions of the evidence to be included, specifying the portion desired in narrative form, if any, and the portions desired in question and answer form, if any."
"Rule 377-a. Statement of the Points to Be Relied On. - For the purpose of inducing the opposing party to accept an abbreviated transcript or statement of facts, the appellant, or the appellee to the extent that he complains of the judgment or any part thereof, may file with the clerk of the trial court a statement of the points on which he intends to rely on appeal; and he shall thereafter be limited to such points."
It will be seen from these rules that the appellee may readily get into the statement of facts anything that the appellant omits. For this reason and in order to encourage curtailment of the statement of facts, it seems to be within the purpose of the' rules to depart from the old presumption.
"If anything material to either party is omitted from the transcript or statement of facts, the parties by stipulation, or the trial court, either before or after the record has been transmitted to the appellate court, or the appellate court, on a proper suggestion or on its own initiative, may direct a supplemental record to be certified and transmitted by the clerk of the trial court supplying such omitted matter."
Rule 504 applies to the Supreme Court and is to the same effect.
"In view of the abundant provisions contained in the new rules authorizing the appellee to designate any additional matter which he desires to have brought up on the statement of facts, and further provisions allowing him to supplement the statement of facts later, if necessary, the old presumption should not prevail."
5 Tex. B.J. 236 (1942) reprinted in 8 Tex. B.J. 17 (1945).
(No. 62) Question: Where a transcript, containing findings of fact and conclusions of law, has been filed in the Court of Civil Appeals within the sixty days' time prescribed by Rule 386, but no statement of facts has been filed within such time, if, pursuant to a stipulation, a statement of facts is afterward tendered to the Clerk of the Court of Civil Appeals for filing which shows the evidence upon which the judge made his findings, is it the duty of the clerk to file such statement of facts?
Art. 1839, 2 Tex. Jud. C. Rep. 4-5, and 18 Tex. Law Rev. 8 and Plate III. That the filing in the present instance was stipulated would doubtless be a cogent reason for granting the motion if timely made. That findings of fact were in the instant transcript might formerly have indicated some sort of an election to go up in that way, but under the present Rules that fact would not weigh against the filing of the statement of facts since the policy of the Rules is not to punish missteps and changes of plan but to reach the merits of Appeals. Rules 1, 370, 386, 428. In our opinion, however, none of these considerations is for the clerk. He has no authority to file a tardy statement of facts, of which no part has been filed in time, unless his Court so orders.
5 Tex. B.J. 427 (1942) reprinted in 8 Tex. B.J. 26 (1945).
(No. 69) Question: Does the answer in No. 42 on Page 236 of 5 Tex. B.J. undertake hold that all presumptions in favor of the judgment of a lower court are to be done away with?
Answer: No. The intention was to say that there will be no presumption that matter omitted from the statement of facts sustains the judgment.
5 Tex. B.J. 428 (1942) reprinted in 8 Tex. B.J. 27 (1945).
(No. 55) Question: 1. Where an application for writ of error was filed and granted before the rules became effective, may the Supreme Court after such rules have become effective properly dismiss such an application without allowing an amendment, upon the ground that jurisdiction because of conflict of decisions is not correctly shown, and properly overrule a motion to amend in such respect?
2. How and under what circumstances may an application for writ of error in the Supreme Court be amended?
Answer: Rule 814 insofar as it is applicable reads: "These rules shall take effect on September 1, 1941. They shall govern all proceedings in actions brought after they take effect and also further proceedings in actions then pending.... "
We are of the opinion that motion to amend, as well as the overruling of such a motion and the dismissal of a writ of error, would be "further proceedings" as contemplated by the above rule.
Rule 1 requires that the rules be given a liberal construction "to obtain a just, fair, equitable and impartial adjudication of the rights of litigants under established principles of substantive law." It is the clear intent of Rules 481 and 504 that the appellate courts should allow reasonable amendments at any time to correct or amend defects or irregularities in want of form. Rule 437, which is applicable to the Courts of Civil Appeals, provides, in substance, that a judgment should not be affirmed or reversed or an appeal dismissed for defects or irregularities in appellate procedure, "either of form or substance, without allowing a reasonable time to correct or amend such defects or irregularities provided the court may make no enlargement of time prohibited by Rule 5 nor any enlargement of time for filing transcript or statement of facts except as contemplated by Rule 387." Rule 504, which specifically applies to the Supreme Court, is to the same effect as Rule 437, which, as stated, applies to actions pending in the Courts of Civil Appeals.
The committee strongly believes that Rules 437, 481, and 504 mark an advanced step in procedure, and that compliance with them will enable the courts in the future to dispose of cases on their merits and reduce to a minimum dismissals for technical procedural defects.
No purpose stands out in the rules with greater prominence than this, viz.; that the attainment of justice, according to the principles of substantive law, is the desideratum in every case; that the rules of procedure should expedite, and not frustrate, the trial of cases on their merit and that irregularities either in matters of form or substance should be, disregarded unless such indulgence and liberality will result in injustice.
Cochran v. Wool Growers Central Storage Co., 140 Tex. 904, 166 S.W.2d 904 (1943), which passes upon a motion to amend an application for writ of error is, we think, in accordance with the above views.
"The Supreme Court will not affirm or reverse a judgment or dismiss a writ of error for defects or irregularities in appellate procedure either of form or substance, without allowing a reasonable time to correct or amend such defects or irregularities... "
This mandatory provision for amendment only applies, however, where, the court bases its action upon some such fault.
For a feasible practice in this connection see Hodo v. Mexican Nat'l R.R. Co., 88 Tex. 523, 524, 32 S.W. 511 (1895), and Hilliard v. White, 88 Tex. 591, 593, 32 S.W. 525, 526 (1895).
6 Tex. B.J. 20 (1943) reprinted in 8 Tex. B.J. 30 (1945).
(No. 91) Question: Do the rules which authorize an abbreviation of the record on appeal allow the omission from the transcript of documents showing the jurisdiction of the trial or appellate court? Does Opinion No. 42 of the subcommittee militate against such procedure?
Answer: Opinion No. 42 was only intended to relate to that presumption which had been indulged in by appellate courts to the effect that where the statement of facts was incomplete it would be presumed that the omitted matter was sufficient to sustain the judgment of the trial court. Our Opinion No. 42 related to matters omitted from the statement of facts, and it did not relate to the transcript, nor did it undertake to suggest a rule showing what papers should be contained in the transcript to establish the jurisdiction of the trial or appellate court.
We call attention to Opinion No. 69, 5 Tex. B.J. 428, which construes Opinion No. 42 and states that it was not the intention of Opinion No. 42 to say that all presumptions in favor of the judgment of a lower court are to be done away with, the intention merely being to say that there will be no presumption that matter which is omitted from the statement of facts sustained the judgment of the trial court.
The rules provide that when matter is omitted from the transcript the parties shall be given an opportunity to complete the transcript and bring up any omitted document should such document be deemed material. In other words, if the appellate court feels that the petition and bond from the justice's court or any other document should appear in the record in order to give the Court of Civil Appeals jurisdiction, then the rules provide that the parties should be given an opportunity to bring up the omitted documents, and the appeal should not be dismissed without first affording this opportunity. Rules 437, 504.
6 Tex. B.J. 500 (1943) reprinted in 8 Tex. B.J. 36 (1945).
(No. 109) Question: Under amended Rule 414, effective December 31, 1943, if a cause is pending on appeal when the rule takes effect must appellant's brief be filed in thirty days after the record is filed OR is there an enlargement of time for filing such brief?
Answer: We are of the opinion that there is an enlargement of time. As now worded, Rule 414 requires the brief to be filed within thirty days after notice of the date of submission in the Court of Civil Appeals. The amendment, on the other hand, requires it to be filed within thirty days after the date upon which the record is filed in the Court of Civil Appeals. Copies are to be filed in either instance. It should be added that the purpose of the amendment is to prevent delay and any retarding of the supply of business upon which the Courts of Civil Appeals may work. A number of situations could present themselves in an appealed case at the end of the year of 1943 when the amendment becomes effective. If as of that time notice of date of submission has not been given under the old rule and the record has not been filed there is, of course, no difficulty: the time for the brief runs from the date upon which the record shall be filed. If such notice has been given and the record had been filed, under the formula given in Odum v. Garner, 86 Tex. 374, 25 S.W. 18 (1894), whatever proportion of the old period has elapsed at the effective date of amendment is to be deducted from the new period and the rest of the new period is still open. Thus, for example, if two-thirds of the old period has elapsed, one-third of the new period, or, in this case, ten days is still open. If such notice of date of submission has not been given but the record has been filed, by the same principle (since under the old law the full thirty days are still open) full thirty days from the effective date of the amendment are available. If the record has not as yet been filed, under the express words of the amendment full thirty days will lie after the record shall be filed.
In his letter correspondent suggests that aside from any consideration of time as a matter of right, the appellate court may grant time in the exercise of discretion. In this connection we call attention to Rule 437 as amended in 1941, and express the opinion that in determining a "reasonable time" thereunder important factors would be the consideration of actual prejudice to opponent and of the convenience and business load of the court. San Antonio & Aransas Pass Ry. Co. v. Holden, 93 Tex. 211, 54 S. W. 751 (1900), and Rule 414 as amended.
7 Tex. B.J. 15 (1944) reprinted in 8 Tex. B.J. 40 (1945).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 

Art. 1839
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.