Court Opinion

ID: 9831674
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 21:16:45.122966+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:36.875026
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
On April 9, 1937, we granted an application of appellant for a writ of mandamus against respondent Henry Gould, official court reporter for the Ninety-Sixth district court of Tarrant county, requiring him to make and deliver to appellant a narrative statement of the testimony offered in the trial of this cause.
Respondent Gould has filed his motion for a rehearing in the mandamus proceeding. He urges, in support of his motion, the proposition that the time has now expired in which appellant could file a statement of facts in this court, and we should not require him to do a useless thing.
The motion states that we did not write an opinion in the hearing and respondent does not know upon what theory of law the order was entered. We did not consider it necessary to write an opinion upon the hearing, nor do we now think one would have been of any help to the parties. The appellant had perfected her appeal to this court and 'was entitled to a statement of facts to be considered by us. We found no impediment in her way, upon which to deny her this right.
The motion before us states that we perhaps overlooked the provisions of article 1839, Rev.Civ.Statutes, as amended (Vernon’s Ann.Civ.St. art. 1839), and the *456late cases of Wall v. Gillen (Tex.Civ.App.) 63 S.W.(2d) 270, and McCollum v. Tudor (Tex.Civ.App.) 100 S.W.(2d) 739, by this court, construing the statute referred to.
We were not unmindful of the authorities cited, but do not consider them applicable to the filing of statement of facts. Article 1839, as now amended, applies only to filing' transcripts in the appellate court; an examination of the cases cited likewise are on that point and do not refer even remotely to the filing of the statement of facts.
Rev.Civ.St. art. 2245, and article 2246, as amended (Vernon’s Ann.Civ.St. art. 2246), control the filing of statement of facts. If and when such statement is tendered for filing in this court, we shall expect the requirements there set out to be' met.
" Respondent’s motion for rehearing is overruled.