Case Name: B. F. Peoples et al. v. Fannie Evans et al.
Court: Texas Courts of Civil Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1908-06-24
Citations: 50 Tex. Civ. App. 225
Docket Number: 
Parties: B. F. Peoples et al. v. Fannie Evans et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Civil Appeals Reports
Volume: 50
Pages: 225–229

Head Matter:
B. F. Peoples et al. v. Fannie Evans et al.
Decided April 14, June 24, 1908.
1. —Appeal—Briefs.
An appeal will not be dismissed for failure .of appellant to file briefs within the time required where appellee cannot be prejudiced by the delay, as where the case cannot be reached for submission at that term of the court.
2. —Statement of Facts.
An appeal will not be dismissed because the original statement of facts is not sent up with the record, as required by the Act of May 25, 1907, but is copied in the transcript, where, in answer to the motion to dismiss, the original statement is filed within the time permitted for filing the transcript.
3. —Same.
A statement of facts not in narrative form, as required by the statute, but largely in the form of question and answer, will be struck out on motion.
' ON MOTION FOB BBHEABING.
4. —Same.
A statement of facts prepared from stenographer’s notes under the Act of May 25, 1907, must comply with that law, whether the court from which the appeal is taken has or has not an official stenographer.
5. —Same.
A statement of facts prepared under the Act of May 25, 1907, is required to be in narrative form, and all laws permitting the evidence to be given by question and answer are repealed by that Act. This law cannot be departed from for the purpose of emphasizing certain testimony or showing the bias of the witness.
Appeal from the District Court of Milam County. Tried below before Don. J. C. Scott.
The' opinions published were delivered upon motions by appellee to dismiss the appeal and to strike out the statement of facts, and upon appellant’s motion for a rehearing upon the ruling striking out the statement. Rehearing having been denied, the appeal was dismissed by agreement on November 25, 1908.
Etheridge & McCormick and Freeman & Morrison, (for appellees) in support of motions.
The purported statement of facts was prepared by appellants’ counsel and agreed to by appellees’ counsel, and it is not a ease even in which the parties disagreed and the duty of preparing the statement of facts devolved upon the judge, but it is a case wherein the parties have seen fit to deliberately ignore the positive requirements of the statute and to proceed in palpable and flagrant disregard of its mandatory provisions. Act of May 25, 1907, Laws, 30th Leg., 509; Rule 78, Supreme Court, 94 Texas, 678; Caswell v. Hopson, 43 S. W., 547; Brown v. Vizcaya, 54 S. W., 636; Wentworth v. King, 49 S. W., 696; Texas Central R. Co. v. Flanary, 45 S. W., 214; Juergens v. M., K. & T. Ry. Co., 16 Texas Civ. App., 452; Opperman v. Petri, 107 S. W., 1142.
M. J. Moore, W. T. Hefley and Henderson & Lockett (for appellants) contra.
Said statement is and was prepared in substantial compliance with the requirements of law and the rules of court governing the same, in that the said statement, which covers and includes about seventy pages in the transcript, is almost entirely in condensed narrative form, .and those portions thereof in which the testimony is given in the form of question and answer are comparatively brief; and such form of statement was necessary in order to elucidate the fact or question involved, to show the character of said testimony as bearing upon appellant’s contention touching the competency, relevancy, materiality and credibility of said testimony. Court of Civil Appeals Rule 53; District and County Court Rules, 72-78; McManus v. Wallis, 52 Texas, 540; Oriental Co. v. Barclay, 93 Texas, 425, 428-430; Williams v. House, 45 S. W., 960-1; Houston & T. C. Ry. Co. v. Williams, 31 S. W., 559; Eikel v. Randolph, 6 Texas Civ. App., 423.

Opinion:
FISHEB, Chief Justice.
We overrule the motion to dismiss the appeal. It appears from the condition of the docket that this case will not be reached during the present term of the court; and, in keeping with a ruling heretofore made, we do not think the failure to file the briefs in the court below within the time required by the statute will résult in any prejudice to the rights of the appellees. We have heretofore held that that provision of the statute requiring briefs to be filed within a certain time is only to be rigidly enforced when it appears that the appellee will be injured on account of the failure to file the briefs within the time required. As the case will not be reached during the present sitting of the Court, it is clear that the appellants will have ample time to file briefs if done within a reasonable time, which is hereby accorded them, and if so done the appellees will have plenty of time to reply before this cause can possibly be submitted. Therefore, the motion to dismiss for failure to comply with the rule to file briefs in the court below, will be overruled.
We also overrule that ground of the motion to dismiss for failure to send up the original statement of facts. The transcript does contain, as stated by appellees, a copy of the statement of facts, and there did not accompany the record on the day that the transcript was filed in this court the original statement of facts, as required by the Act of May 25, 1907, on page 59 of the Session Laws for that year; but in reply to the motion to dismiss on this ground, the appellants have filed in this court the original statement of facts, which filing was within the time required by law for filing the original transcript in this court. We regard this as an answer to this ground of the motion to dismiss.
But we sustaih appellees' motion to strike out the statement of facts on the ground that it was not prepared in accordance with the present law upon that subject. Most of the statement of facts embraces questions and answers, and was prepared subsequent to the time that the last Legislature amended the law relating to the preparation of statements of facts. There is some evidence which seems to be in narrative form, as required by the present law, but we can not dissociate it from the other evidence in the record that is in response to questions asked and which is in the nature of answers thereto. Opperman v. Petri, 107 S. W., 1142. A correct solution of the questions raised by the facts can not well be determined unless we consider all the evidence stated in the record bearing upon the question in issue, and, as most of this evidence is in the objectionable form alluded to, we have thought it proper to strike out the entire statement of facts.
Therefore the motion will be granted as to striking out the statement of facts, and will be overruled as to dismissing the appeal.