Court Opinion

ID: 9833601
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 22:52:17.453022+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:44:04.906255
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
In the original opinion it was stated that the ruling of the trial court on the motion for continuance could not be reviewed 'because there was no bill of exceptions reserving ground for review. The statement was made without taking into consideration the amendment of 1939 to Section 4, Article 2237, R.S., Vernon’s Ann.Civ.St. art. 2237. This amendment was entirely overlooked.
Let us assume, without deciding, that the amendment suffices to give the right of review where the overruling of the motion for continuance appears in the minutes. The transcript here fails to show that prior to the rendition of the judgment appealed from a motion for continuance was made and overruled. In plaintiff’s amended motion for a new trial, duly verified, appears this statement: “The court, though admittingly possessing discretionary powers to grant, or refuse to grant, applications for continuance, abused its discretionary power in view of the peculiar circumstances of this cause in refusing and disallowing plaintiffs permission to withdraw their announcement of ready during the trial of the cause made.”
The motion for continuance was filed on the 28th day of September, the.same date plaintiffs’ original motion for a new trial was filed. Order was made on October 27th overruling the motion for continuance and for a new trial. The judgment assailed shows on its face that same was rendered on the 26th day of September.
If the above-quoted portion of plaintiffs’ amended motion for a new trial is an unequivocal statement that in limine a motion to withdraw the announcement of ready,and to continue was made, it is not consistent with the record.
The main ground of complaint is that the court erred in the rejection of the Abe Williams’ patent. This ground of exception is not presented by bill of exceptions. ' It does not appear from the transcript whether the document tendered was a copy of the records of San Patricio County or a certified copy of the records of the General Land Office.
Reversible error does not appear from the record before this court.
Motion overruled.