Court Opinion

ID: 9832790
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 22:12:20.864694+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:52.750411
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
A motion for rehearing and an agreed motion to correct the statement of facts have been filed in this case by appellees. We have reached the conclusion that both motions should be overruled, and this opinion is written merely for the purpose of explaining why the agreed motion to correct the statement of facts has not been granted.
[3] written assignment from Witt to Klein, as copied in the statement of facts, reads: “Without recourse on me and guaran-guaranthe payment thereof.” In the motion to correct the statement of facts, it is agreed that the assignment reads “with recourse,” instead of “without recourse.” The agree-agreeto change the statement of facts is not approved by the trial judge. In Sheldon v. Boyce, 20 Tex. 828, and Johnson v. Blount, 48 Tex. 38, our Supreme Court held 'that a *333statement of facts not approved by tbe presiding judge, tbougb agreed to by tbe parties, could not be considered on appeal. In tbe latter case the parties attempted to waive tbe approval of tbe trial judge, but tbe Supreme Court held that it could not be done, and declined to consider tbe alleged statement of facts. Of course, if the parties to a suit cannot by written agreement waive the approval of tbe presiding judge to a statement of facts, they cannot, without bis approval, make any material change in tbe statement of facts which he has approved; and therefore we feel compelled to overrule the agreed motion to change tbe statement of facts in this case.
[4] Furthermore, it is well settled that appellate courts must dispose of cases upon tbe record sent up from tbe trial court, and therefore this court has no jurisdiction to make tbe correction asked for in this ease. We have no jurisdiction to alter the record of the court from which tbe appeal has come; and, if any correction at all is to be made, it must be done in that court and a proper transcript of the correction brought to this court. However, if the correction asked for were made, it would not change the result, because, in our opinion, there was other testimony submitted which would entitle the appellant to have his plea of privilege passed upon by the jury.
Both motions overruled.