Court Opinion

ID: 9681559
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 07:52:35.312062+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:34.431548
License: Public Domain

On Appellee’s Motion for Rehearing
DIXON, Chief Justice.
The record before us indicates that the trial court concluded that the Dallas Corporation Court is not a “police court.” The record is somewhat confusing, but that is evidently the basis of the trial court’s judgment. In so concluding we think that the trial court was in error. The term “corporation court” is synonymous with the term “police court.” We agree with appellant’s statement in the argument under its one point on appeal: “It is unreasonable to think that the legislature was thinking about any other court than the Corporation Court when they included the ‘police’ court.”
Appellee in his original brief and in his motion for rehearing says that the judgment on its face shows that there was a trial before .the trial court with both law and facts being submitted to the trial court; hence we were in error in saying that the judgment appealed from' was based only on the pleadings.
We are unable to agree with appellee. The record shows that on May 28, 1954 appellee filed a “motion for judgment on the pleadings”, on the grounds that “The Dallas Corporation Court is -not a Police Court, * * On the same day the court rendered the judgment appealed from. It is true that the court’s judgment says that a jury was waived, “all matters both' of law and of fact, being submitted to the court * * but later on in the court’s judg*668ment is this recital: “ * * * and the court having considered the pleadings and the motion filed by petitioner, being a Motion for Judgment on the pleadings * . * *.’’ The court then proceeds to render judgment on the grounds presented in the motion for judgment on the pleadings — in effect, that the Dallas Corporation Court is not a police court. It is significant that the court’s judgment nowhere recites that the court considered any evidence. And the record does not contain a statement'of facts.
Appellee’s motion for rehearing is overruled.
YOUNG, J., dissents.