Case Name: HERBERT & WIGHT v. COFFEE
Court: Texas Courts of Civil Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1912-05-09
Citations: 148 S.W. 346
Docket Number: 
Parties: HERBERT & WIGHT v. COFFEE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 148
Pages: 346–347

Head Matter:
HERBERT & WIGHT v. COFFEE.
(Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. El Paso.
May 9, 1912.
On Rehearing, May 29, 1912.)
1. Appeal and Error (§ 627 ) — Record— Statement of Pacts — Time por Piling.
Where an original copy of the statement ■o'f facts, not bearing the file mark of the clerk of the lower court, and a carbon copy bearing «uch file mark . appeared in the record, but neither the original nor the copy was filed within the time prescribed by law, neither can be considered.
[Ed. Note. — Por other cases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. §§ 2744^-2749, 3126; Dec. Dig. § 627. ]
On Rehearing.
■2. Appeal and Error (§ 601 ) — Record-Statement oe Pacts — Original Copy.
The original copy of the statement of facts may properly be considered a part of the transcript of the record on appeal.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. §§ 2651-2853; Dec. Dig. § '601. ]
3. Appeal and Error (§ 628 ) — Record — Time for Filing Transcript — Extension by Stipulation.
An agreement between the parties, extending the time of filing the transcript beyond the ;90 days allowed by statute, is, in effect, good cause shown why the transcript was not filed within the statutory period, and will be given the effect intended by the parties.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. §§ 2750-2764; Dec. Dig. “ 628. ]
4. Appeal and Error (§ 624 ) — Time for Filing Transcript — Extension by Agreement-Reasonable Time.
A stipulation of parties as to the time of filing the statement of facts cannot indefinitely delay its filing; and, hence, where a transcript ■of the record was originally filed in another Court of Civil Appeals June 12, Í911, and after transfer was filed here August 3, 1911, and the statement of facts and duplicate received ■by the clerk of this court April 22, 1912, was ■not filed until after submission of the case and opinion rendered, it was tendered too late, notwithstanding a stipulation that it might be filed in the appellate court at any time before final submission of the case.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. §§ 2737-2742; Dec. Dig. § '624. ]
Appeal from District Court, Ector County; S. J. Isaacs, Judge.
Trespass to try title between Herbert & Wight and Frances Coffee. ‘Judgment for Coffee, and Herbert & Wight appeal.
Affirmed.
Frank A. Judkins, of Odessa, for appellants. John B. Howard, of Midland, for ■appellee.
For other cases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key No. Series & Rep’r Indexes

Opinion:
HIGGINS, J.
This is an action of trespass to try title for the purpose of establishing a boundary. The cause was tried before the court, who filed conclusions of law and fact.
There appears in the record an original copy of the statement of facts approved by the court and counsel; also a carbon copy thereof. The carbon copy bears the file mark of the clerk of the lower court; but the original does not. Neither the original nor the copy was filed in the Pt. Worth Court of Civil Appeals (from which it was transferred to this court), nor in this court, within the time prescribed by law, and cannot be considered.
In the absence of a statement of facts, we cannot pass upon the merits of the two assignments of error presented by appellants.
No errors appearing of a fundamental nature, the judgment is affirmed.