Case Name: BARFIELD et al. v. EMERY et al.
Court: Supreme Court of Texas
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1915-06-26
Citations: 177 S.W. 952
Docket Number: No. 8248
Parties: BARFIELD et al. v. EMERY et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 177
Pages: 952–953

Head Matter:
BARFIELD et al. v. EMERY et al.
(No. 8248.)
(Supreme Court of Texas.
June 26, 1915.)
Appeal and Error <§=^1071 — Conclusions op Trial Judge — Failure to File.
Failure of the trial judge to file his conclusions in the statutory time does not warrant a reversal, it not preventing a proper presentation of the questions involved on the appeal, or operating to appellants’ prejudice in the appellate court.
TEd. Note. — For other cases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. §§ 4234 — 4230; Dec. Dig. 1071.]
Action by F. H. Barfield and others against S. E. Emery and another. Judgment for plaintiffs was reversed by the Court of Civil Appeals (156 S. W. 311), and defendants petition for writ of error.
Reversed and remanded to Court of Civil Appeals.
J. M. Wagstaff, of Abilene, for plaintiffs in error. Ben L. Cox and Eugene De Bog-ory, both of Abilene, for defendants in error.

Opinion:
PHILLIPS, C. J.
An answer having been filed by the defendants to the petition for writ of error, we are enabled to decide the case. It is one in which the Honorable Court of Civil Appeals for the Second District has reversed the judgment of the trial court there rendered in favor of the plaintiff in error because of the failure of the trial court to file his findings of fact and conclusions of law upon the motion of the defendants in error within 10 days after the adjournment of the term. A bill of exception contains an explanation of the trial judge of his omission to file his conclusions within the statutory period, due, as stated by him, to the fact that his home was under quarantine during the period necessary for their preparation; this explanation, however, being controverted by opposing affidavits. Although the conclusions of the trial judge were not duly filed, it appears that a statement of facts was duly prepared and filed and accompanied the record on the appeal.
We agree with the view expressed in the dissenting opinion of Chief Justice Conner that It does not appear that the omission of the trial judge to duly file his conclusions prevented a proper presentation of the questions involved in the appeal, or that it could have operated to the prejudice of .the appellants in that court. We are of opinion therefore that it did not in itself warrant a reversal of the judgment.
Since it appears that the judgment was reversed upon this ground, in reversing the judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals, the case is remanded to that court for further consideration. A more extended opinion will be later filed.
(g^jPor other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes