Court Opinion

ID: 9653653
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 17:51:10.62443+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:13:00.603912
License: Public Domain

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
We have permitted appellant to file an affidavit herein which shows that on March 5, 1969, appellant sent appellee’s attorney the following letter:
“I have previously advised you of my intention to appeal the McCandless case. In accordance with Rule 377, (D) of the ‘Texas Rules of Civil Procedure,’ I am enclosing a statement of facts to be filed as our part of the transcript. It will be appreciated if you will review these statements and make any additions you may desire, and advise me within 10 days in order that I may proceed to file them with the court.
As indicated by the enclosures, I will make no contest with respect to the extent of damages, and therefore, have not included a statement of your witnesses in connection with the damages.”
This letter is not in the transcript and was not filed with the Clerk of the Court as required by Rule 377(c), T.R.C.P. For these reasons, we are not authorized to consider such letter.
We have also permitted appellant to file a statement of the trial judge which we quote:
“To the best of my recollection the plaintiff presented three witnesses at the trial. One witness was Mr. William S. Click whose testimony is accurately recorded in the summary of testimony approved by Mr. Guy on March 5, 1969 and Mr. Watkins on March 17, 1969. A second witness was Officer J. Bennett whose testimony is accurately recorded in the summary approved by Mr. Guy on March 13, 1969 and Mr. Watkins on March 17, 1969. The plaintiff presented one additional witness whose testimony was restricted to matters relating to the extent of damages of the carport.
I do recall that during the testimony of Officer J. Bennett he had in his hand a document which I assume was his investigative report. He refreshed his memory from the document and was asked some questions about it; however, neither plaintiff’s nor defendant’s counsel offered the document into evidence and it was not received in evidence.
*712I do recall that some pictures of the bus were put in evidence and such pictures are herewith attached to this statement.1
The defendant offered one witness, Mr. K. R. Miller whose testimony is accurately recorded in the summary of testimony approved by Mr. Guy on March 13, 1969 and Mr. Watkins on March 17, 1969.
Other than as noted above, there was no material evidence considered by me in reaching my decision.”
It does not appear that this case was tried with the assistance of a court reporter, although they are provided for by statute. Art. 2327, V.T.C.S.
The provisions of Rule 377, T.R.C.P. seem to apply primarily, if not entirely, to cases tried with a court reporter. We do not construe this rule as requiring or authorizing a trial judge to prepare a statement of facts. This was the law at one time. See Art. 2240, R.C.S.1925, prior to its repeal in 1939, 46th Leg. p. 201, Sec. 1. Also see Pacific Greyhound Lines, Inc. v. Burgess, 118 S.W.2d 1100, Tex.Civ.App., Amarillo, writ ref., where it was held that the trial judge was without authority to prepare a statement of facts by reason of certain amendments to then Arts. 2238-2239, R.C.S. 1925, relating to the use of court reporter’s notes in preparing a statement of facts.
We believe that had the Legislature meant to cast the onerous duty of preparing a statement of facts on the trial judge when no reporter was present and thus returned to the old system, it would have so plainly stated. The trial judge does have duties under paragraph (d) of Rule 377 in settling disputes relative to a statement of facts but this record discloses no dispute or disagreement about a statement of facts.
We hold that neither a complete statement of facts nor an agreed statement of facts have been filed in this case and that we are without authority to pass on appellant’s evidentiary points. Englander Co. v. Kennedy, 428 S.W.2d 806, Tex.Sup. (1968).
The motion for rehearing is overruled.
Motion overruled.

. The pictures do not show a bus.