Case Name: BAUGH v. BAUGH et al.
Court: Texas Courts of Civil Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1915-03-04
Citations: 175 S.W. 725
Docket Number: No. 1417
Parties: BAUGH v. BAUGH et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 175
Pages: 725–727

Head Matter:
BAUGH v. BAUGH et al.
(No. 1417.)
(Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Texarkana.
March 4, 1915.
On Rehearing, April 10, 1915.)
1. Appeal and Error &wkey;>544 — Questions Presenter poe Review — Bills of Exception and Statement op Facts.
Assignments of error to the manner in which the cause was submitted to the jury on special issues cannot be considered, where there are no bills of exception or statement of facts in the record and no showing of fundamental error.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. §§ 2412-2415, 2417-2420, 2422-2426, 2428, 2478, 2479; Dec. Dig. &wkey;544J
2. Appeal and Ekboe &wkey;?544 — Questions Peesented poe Review — Bills op Exception and Statement op Facts.
In the absence of any bills of exception or statement of facts in the record, the denial'of an extension of time for filing bills of exception .and statement of facts cannot be reviewed.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. §§ 2412-2415, 2417-2420, 2422-2426, 2428, 2478, 2479; Dec. Dig. &wkey;544.1 On Rehearing.
3. Process <&wkey;24 — Citation—File Number.
The statute, requiring the citation to contain the file number of the case, is satisfied if the number is indorsed on the back thereof, though not in the body, and such citation will .support a judgment by default.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Process, Cent. Dig. §§ 9, 19; Dec. Dig. <&wkey;24.]
4. Appeaeanoe <&wkey;24 — Effect — Waivee op Defects in Process.
Where a defendant, who filed no answer, appeared at the trial and requested the submission of special issues to the jury, he waived any defect in the citation.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Appearance, Cent. Dig. §§ 118-143; Dec. Dig. &wkey;24.]
5. Appeal and Error <&wkey;670 — Record—Correction — Affidavit.
A record, showing that a defendant who filed no answer requested the submission of special issues, cannot be changed by an affidavit of plaintiff’s counsel, stating that those issues were submitted by plaintiff and not by defendant, which was first called to the attention of the Court of Appeals on motion for rehearing.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. §§ 2865, 2866; Dee. Dig. &wkey;670.]
6. Judgment i&wkey;525 — Recitals — Appearance.
A judgment, which recites that one of the defendants failed to appear and answer, and that after the trial and verdict rendered against that defendant, judgment was entered against him, does not show on its face that that defendant did not appear at the trial, notwithstanding his failure to answer as the record shows he did, since it shows that the judgment against him was not interlocutory on default, but on the verdict of the jury.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Judgment, Cent. Dig. §§ 568, 968, 98214; Dec. Dig. <§=> 525.]
Error from Panola County Court; Geo. I-Harkrider, Judge.
Action by C. V. Baugh against M. S. Baugh and R. S. Scoggins. Judgment for the plaintiff against the defendant M. S. Baugh and for the defendant Scoggins against the plaintiff, and both plaintiff and defendant M. S. Baugh bring error.
Affirmed, and motion of M. S. Baugh for rehearing overruled.
H. N. Nelson, of Carthage, for plaintiffs in error. W. G. Banks and Brooke & Woolworth, all of Carthage, for defendant in error.

Opinion:
HODGES, J.
C. V. Baugh filed this suit against R. S. Scoggins and M. S. Baugh to recover the sum of $220, together with interest and attorney's fees due upon a promissory note. He also sought the foreclosure of a lien on a land note for $300, which had been deposited' with him by Scoggins as collateral security for the payment of the note sued on. M. S. Baugh made no answer in the court below. Scoggins answered, admitting the execution of the note, and that he had deposited the land note referred to as collateral security; but he further alleged that subsequent to the execution of the note sued on there had been an agreement between all the parties that M. S. Baugh alone was to be held responsible for the amount due on the note, and that he (Scoggins) was to be released and his vendor's lien note returned to him. In addition to the prayer to be discharged with his costs, he also sought to have a recovery of the note deposited as collateral security. Upon a trial before a jury verdict and judgment were rendered in favor of O. V. Baugh against only M. S. Baugh for the amount of the note sued on, together with interest and attorney's fees. Judgment was also rendered in favor of Scoggins, exonerating him from liability and awarding him a recovery of the note held by C. V. Baugh as collateral security.
Both M. S. Baugh and C. V. Baugh appeal, and separately assign errors to the manner in which the case was submitted to the jury on special issues. There is neither a statement of facts nor any bills of exception in the record, and we are unable to say that the court committed any error. It appears from the briefs that practically the only issue about which there was any contest was the agreement set up by Scoggins, in which he claimed a release from any further liability on the $220 note. We cannot say that the manner in which this was submitted by the court was fundamentally wrong.
It is also complained by G. V. Baugh that the court erroneously denied him a further extension of time in which to file his bills of exception and the statement of facts. In the present state of the record that ruling cannot be reviewed.
The judgment of the county court is affirmed.
i&wkey;>For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER In all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes