Case Name: GOLDBERG v. ALLEN
Court: Texas Courts of Civil Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1922-10-18
Citations: 244 S.W. 1113
Docket Number: No. 6487
Parties: GOLDBERG v. ALLEN.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 244
Pages: 1113–1115

Head Matter:
GOLDBERG v. ALLEN.
(No. 6487.)
(Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Austin.
Oct. 18, 1922.
Rehearing Denied Nov. 22, 1922.)
1. Appeal and error <&wkey;544( I) — Errors involving reference to facts not considered where no statement of facts is in record.
Where all assignments of error call in question the state of the case as made by the evidence, and there was no statement of nor conclusions of facts in the record, the assignment will not be considered.
On Rehearing and Application for Permission to File Statement of Facts.
2. Appeal and error <&wkey;628(I) — Excuse for failure to file statensent of facts insufficient.
Where transcript and printed briefs were filed over a year before submission of the cause without' any statement of facts having been filed or without effort to do so, which was due solely to oversight of counsel or their stenographer, the excuse for failure to so file was insufficient.
3. Appeal and error <&wkey;>624 — For good cause, statement of facts may be filed at iater date than fixed by statute.
The statement of facts is by the statute and rules of court made part of the record, and should be filed with the transcript; but it is in the coui-t’s discretion to allow it to be filed at a date later than that fixed for good cause shown.
Appeal from District Court, MeLennan County.
. Action by Collin Allen against B. R. Goldberg. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
Taylor & Hale, of Waco, for appellant.
Stanford & Stanford, of Waco, for appel-lee.

Opinion:
BRADY, J.
Appellee sued appellant for damages for alleged personal injuries sustained by liim from being bitten by appellant's dog, wbicb was alleged to have been afflicted witb rabies. Tbe petition alleged negligence on tbe part of appellant in permitting tbe dog to run at large, witb knowledge that tbe animal was afflicted witb rabies, and that in sucb condition be was vicious and would expose tbe public, including appellee, to danger of being bitten. Appellant answered by general demurrer, general denial, and specially denied tbe alleged negligence, but pleaded that tbe injuries of ap-pellee were due to bis own contributory negligence.
Tbe ease was submitted to tbe jury upon special issues, wbicb were all favorable to appellee, including an award of $750 for damages. Judgment was entered for appel-lee in conformity to tbe yerdict, and tbe findings are sufficient to support the' judgment.
Tbe brief of appellant contains a number of assignments of error, complaining of the submission of one of tbe special issues, because tbe evidence does not raise the issue, and that tbe answer of tbe jury to sucb issue was contrary to tbe evidence; and other assignments complaining of tbe refusal to give certain requested charges, wbicb it is claimed were required by tbe evidence; and also complaining of certain definitions of negligence given in tbe charge.
There is no statement of facts in tbe record, nor are there any conclusions of fact. Appellee's counsel insist that since all tbe assignments call in question tbe state of tbe case as made by tbe evidence, or are dependent upon tbe condition of tbe evidence, this court should overrule or refuse to consider any of appellant's assignments of error, citing tbe following cases: Pace v. Price et al. (Tex. Civ. App.) 45 S. W. 203; G., H. & S. A. Ry. Co. v. Perkins (Tex. Civ. App.) 73 S. W. 1067; G., H. & S. A. Ry. Co. v. Keen (Tex. Civ. App.) 73 S. W. 1074; Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. McAllister, 59 Tex. 349.
Witb this contention we are constrained to agree. Tbe facts proven on tbe trial not being in any manner shown in the record, we are unable to determine that there was any error committed by tbe trial court in tbe particulars complained of, where sucb alleged errors necessarily involve a reference to ihe facts of tbe case. This is manifestly true of all assignments, except, perhaps, those complaining of tbe definitions in tbe charge. As to tbe latter, we are of tbe opinion that it has not been made to appear that there was any error whatever in tbe definitions given, even abstractly considered; but, in any event, we are unable to say that there has been x-eversible error committed in this respect, since there is neither statement of facts nor conclusions of fact in tbe record.
In addition to tbe authorities above cited, we cite tbe following; Fallen v. Weatherford (Tex. Civ. App.) 158 S. W. 1174; Connor v. Mangum (Tex. Civ. App.) 127 S. W. 256; Kruegel v. Johnson (Tex. Civ. App.) 112 S. W. 774; Connell v. Nickey (Tex. Civ. App.) 167 S. W. 313; Bastrop Growers' Ass'n v. Cochran (Tex. Civ. App.) 171 S. W. 294; Hines v. Sparks (Tex. Civ. App.) 146 S. W. 289; Ellerd v. Randolph (Tex. Civ. App.) 138 S. W. 1171.
Tbe judgment will be affirmed.
Affirmed.
<&wkey;JFor other oases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes