Case Name: Witten v. Poindexter
Court: Supreme Court of Texas
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1860-10
Citations: 25 Supp. Tex. 378
Docket Number: 
Parties: Witten v. Poindexter.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Reports
Volume: 25 Supp.
Pages: 378–378

Head Matter:
Witten v. Poindexter.
Where the alleged error rested upon facts said to be proven, and it did not appear that the statement of facts was submitted to the judge for his “ approval and signature,” and that he signed it, the judgment was affirmed. (Paschal’s Dig., Art. 1490, Note 582.)
Error from Dallas. In this case no record or brief were furnished to the Reporter, nor does it appear from what county the case came, except by the indorsement of Judge Roberts. From the opinion, it would seem that it 'must have been a fact case, and that the statement of facts was not approved and signed by the judge, as required by the 135th section of the act to regulate proceedings in the district court. (Paschal’s Dig., Art. 1490, Rote 582.)

Opinion:
Roberts, J.
—The defect in the cause of action, as stated in the petition, is, that no particular land was identified, for which a judgment could have been rendered for plaintiff below, upon a recovery by him. The statement of facts appearing in the transcript has no approval by the district judge who tried the cause. There is', therefore, no ground of reversal presented in the record of the case.
Judgment affirmed.