Case Name: CONTINENTAL TRAILWAYS, INC., Appellant, v. L. L. McCANDLESS, dba Terrace Motor Hotel, Appellee
Court: Texas Courts of Civil Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1969-10-29
Citations: 450 S.W.2d 707
Docket Number: No. 11703
Parties: CONTINENTAL TRAILWAYS, INC., Appellant, v. L. L. McCANDLESS, dba Terrace Motor Hotel, Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter Second Series
Volume: 450
Pages: 707–715

Head Matter:
CONTINENTAL TRAILWAYS, INC., Appellant, v. L. L. McCANDLESS, dba Terrace Motor Hotel, Appellee.
No. 11703.
Court of Civil Appeals of Texas, Austin.
Oct. 29, 1969.
Rehearing Denied Jan. 14, 1970.
Second Rehearing Denied Feb. 4, 1970.
C. B. Guy, Dallas, for appellant.
Baker & Watkins, Thomas H. Watkins, Austin, for appellee.

Opinion:
HUGHES, Justice.
This is a suit for damages resulting from the collision of a bus owned by appellant, Continental Trailways, Inc., with a carport being a part of The Terrace Motel in Austin, Texas, owned by Appellee L. L. McCandless. Trial without a jury resulted in judgment for appellee in the sum of $800.00. '
There has been filed an instrument denominated "Statement of Facts." It contains a summary of the testimony of three witnesses which is agreed to by the parties. It does not purport to contain all the evidence heard below and, obviously, it does not contain all of such evidence because none of the witnesses testified to the amount of damages sustained by the carport.
The trial court, at appellant's request, filed findings of fact and conclusions of law on March 20, 1969, which we quote:
"1. On April 14, 1967, a bus collided with a portion of the Terrace Motor Hotel belonging to the Plaintiff, L. L. Mc-Candless.
2. The bus was owned by the defendant, Continental Trailways, Inc.
3. Mr. K. R. Miller was the man in charge of the bus and was the employee of the defendant, Continental Trailways, Inc.
4. Mr. K. R. Miller had parked the vehicle on an incline sometime prior to the accident.
5. Mr. K. R. Miller had attempted to chock the wheels with large rocks but could not find any large rocks and used some small rocks.
6. Sometime on the evening of April 14, 1967, the bus rolled down the hill and collided with the Terrace Motor Hotel.
7. Mr. K. R. Miller was called to the scene by the employees of the Plaintiff.
8. Mr. K. R. Miller drove the bus back to its original parking position up the hill.
9. No evidence of any other human being or agency, other than K. R. Miller, in any way tampering or operating the bus prior to the damage.
10. The defendant, K. R. Miller, was negligent in the manner in which he parked the vehicle.
11. The negligent parking was the proximate cause of the Plaintiff's damage.
12. The acts of parking the vehicle by K. R. Miller were within the scope and course of his employment by the defendant, Continental Trailways, Inc.
13. The property belonging to the Plaintiff was damaged to the extent of $800.00 as a result of this occurrence.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. There was sufficient evidence to raise a fact issue concerning the negligence of the defendant, Continental Trailways.
2. There was sufficient evidence to raise a fact issue concerning the defendant's negligence being a proximate cause of Plaintiff's damage.
3. Under the findings of fact in the trial of this cause, the Plaintiff is entitled to Judgment against the defendant in the amount of $800.00."
Appellant has ten points of error the first eight of which pertain to the sufficiency or weight of the evidence to sustain findings of fact 6, 10 and 11 and conclusions of law 1 and 2.
It is our opinion that appellant is not entitled to have these points considered for the reason that it has not brought up a complete statement of facts in the absence of which we are required to presume the sufficiency of the evidence to support the findings of fact and the judgment rendered pursuant thereto. We quote from Villaneuva v. Harville, 419 S.W.2d 711, Tex.Civ.App., San Antonio, no writ (1967):
"Appellant, under her first point, urges that the overwhelming preponderance of the evidence establishes that she was denied the essential elements of due proc-cess, to-wit, notice and the opportunity to be heard and defend her property rights in the office in an orderly proceeding. We are unable to review the entire record as required in passing upon this point because of appellant's failure to comply with Rule 377, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Since appel-lees did not consent to a partial statement of facts, we are required to treat this as an appeal without a statement of facts. Gordon v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 351 S.W.2d 602 (Tex.Civ.App. — East-land, 1961, writ ref'd)."
See also Klimist v. Bearden, 374 S.W.2d 783, Tex.Civ.App., Tyler, no writ (1964); Mulcahy v. Cohen, 377 S.W.2d 100, Tex.Civ.App., Houston (1st) writ ref. n. r. e. (1964).
There is no showing in the record that appellee agreed to a partial statement of facts. Neither is there any showing in the record that appellant made any attempt to comply with the provisions of Rule 377, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure under which a partial statement of facts may be filed.
For the reasons stated, we are unable to determine whether appellant's first eight points have merit: They are, accordingly, overruled.
Appellant's ninth point is that the trial court erred in his Conclusion of Law No. 3 for the reason that appellee is not entitled to judgment. This point is obviously based on the validity of the preceding eight points and since they have been overruled, this point should be, and it is, overruled.
Appellant's last point is that the trial court erred in refusing to make requested additional findings of fact. We quote the requested findings:
"1. With respect to finding of fact Number 5; do you find the act of chocking the wheels with small rocks to be negligence ?
2. With respect to finding of fact Number 10; what specific act or acts do you find that constitute negligence on the part of K. R. Miller?
3. Do you find that K. R. Miller did, or did not, put the bus in gear when it was parked?
4. If you find that K. R. Miller did not put the bus in gear; do you find this to be negligence?
5. If your answer to question Number 4 is yes; was this a proximate cause of the accident?
6. Do you find that K. R. Miller did, or did not, place the brake on when the bus was parked?
7. If you find that K. R. Miller did not place the brake on when the bus was parked, do you find this to be negligence ?
8. If your answer to question Number 7 is yes; was this a proximate cause of the accident ?
9. With respect to finding of fact Number 6; approximately how many hours had the bus been parked prior to the accident?
10. With respect to finding of fact Number 9; do you find that K. R. Miller was in any way tampering or operating the bus at or about the time of the accident ?"
The trial court approved appellant's Bill of Exceptions No. 1, from which we quote:
"On February 21st, 1969 the trial Judge advised Counsel by U. S. Mail that judgment had been granted for the plaintiff in the amount of $800.00.
In due course defendant requested the trial Judge to state in writing the conclusions of fact found by him separately from the conclusions of law. Such findings of fact and 'conclusions of law were filed by the Judge on March 20, 1969. Defendant requested additional findings of facts and conclusions of law as provided by law.
Five days having passed since defendant requested additional specific findings of fact and conclusions of law, the trial Judge has failed to file such additional requested findings, as required by Rule 298, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.
Defendant takes exception to the failure of the Judge to file additional findings of fact and conclusions of law, such failure being to the prejudice of defendant."
Without regard to the question of whether a bill of exceptions which conflicts with the record as shown by the transcript prevails over the record, we are of the firm opinion that we are not bound by legal conclusions in the bill which are in clear conflict with the record facts as shown by the transcript. That appellant requested the trial judge to prepare his findings of facts and conclusions of law in "due course," or that additional findings and conclusions were requested of him "as provided by law," or that the trial judge failed to file such additional requested findings, "as required by Rule 298" all relate to questions and conclusions of law which are not binding on this Court even though they be contained in an approved bill of exceptions. See Grisdale v. Thompson, 246 S.W. 426, Tex.Civ.App., Fort Worth, no writ (1922).
Generally, a "Bill of Exceptions" is a memorial of matters occurring at the trial of the cause which do not otherwise appear of record. Words and Phrases, Permanent Edition, Vol. 5, p. 661. See, however, Rule 372, T.R.C.P. A bill of exceptions is necessary to complain of the failure of a trial judge to file findings of fact or additional findings of fact. Steppe v. O'Day, 315 S.W.2d 599, Tex.Civ.App., Waco, writ ref. n. r. e (1958).
We will determine appellant's rights and the duties of the trial judge from the facts shown in the transcript all of which are consisent with the facts, not legal conclusions, stated in the bill of exceptions.
The request for additional findings was filed April 3, 1969 and overruled April IS, 1969. The original findings and conclusions were filed March 20, 1969. Rule 298, T.R.C.P. provides, in part, that a request for additional findings be made within five days after the original findings of fact and conclusions of law have been filed. This request was not so made. The trial judge was not required to consider such request. Strickland Transportation Co. v. International Aerial Mapping Co., 423 S.W.2d 676, Tex.Civ.App., San Antonio, no writ (1968). In fact, Rule 298 forbids the trial judge from preparing and filing additional or amended findings and conclusions after ten days from the filing of the original findings and conclusions.
Because of appellant's failure to comply with the rules relating to preparing and filing additional findings of fact and conclusions of law we overrule point ten.
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Affirmed.
. Rule 298, T.R.C.P. reads:
"After the judge so files original findings of fact and conclusions of law, either party may, within five days, request of him specified further, additional, or amended findings; and the judge shall, within five days after such request, and not later, prepare and file such further, other or amended findings and conclusions as may be proper, whereupon they shall be considered as filed in due time. Notice of the filing of the request provided for herein shall be served on the opposite party as provided in Rule 21a or 21b. As amended by order of March 19, 1957, effective Sept. 1, 1957."