Court Opinion

ID: 9833354
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 22:39:03.277551+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:44:01.917494
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
Besides a motion for rehearing there are pending before us appellee’s motion for writ of certiorari to perfect the record, appellee’s supplemental motion for writ of certiorari to perfect the record, and appellee’s second supplemental motion for writ of certiorari to perfect the record, to all of which appellant has replied. Attached to his original motion for certiorari is a supplemental statement of facts duly signed by the trial judge, in which statement of facts are disclosed the exhibits to the depositions, undertaking to show notice of claim to, and final award by, the Industrial Accident Board. This statement of facts shows that these instruments were introduced before the court for jurisdictional purposes, though not read to the jury. In the second supplemental motion for certiorari appellee advises us that since the filing of said original motion Hon. George B. Davenport, before whom the case was tried below, has advised him that he was in error in signing this supplemental statement of facts, and that upon investigation he finds that he did not admit such exhibits in evidence, but sustained the objection of opposing counsel as to the admission of said evidence for jurisdictional purposes. This supplemental statement of facts will, under these circumstances, be disregarded by us. In fact, we understand the attorneys for appellee to abandon the motion to file same as a part of the record.
We are now asked in appellee’s second supplemental motion for writ of certiorari to permit him to perfect the record by bringing up in the transcript bills of exception reserved by him to the action of the court in excluding these documents, which would have *715shown jurisdiction in the trial court. Appel-lee also asks permission of this court to bring up cross-assignments of error filed by him below, complaining of the action of the trial court in excluding this evidence. He does not attach copies of the bills of exception and cross-assignments, but appellant, in its reply to the motion, has brought up these bills and assignments duly certified by the clerk of the trial court. These bills of exception disclose that certain documents were offered in evidence which were stated to be a claim for compensation and a final award by the Industrial Accident Board, but such instruments are not set out in the bills, and, were we to grant the motion for certiorari, we would be in the same position as we were upon original submission. We would still be unable to tell whether a final award had been made, and, if so, when. The bills of exception would be of no benefit to us in disposing Of the jurisdictional question presented.
It also becomes evident that, if we were to grant this motion and permit the filing of this supplement, appellee has no brief containing assignments and propositions thereunder which would invoke our jurisdiction to determine whether the court erred in excluding the offered instruments. Had appellee, in his original brief, attached his cross-assignments and predicated propositions thereon, then it would haye been our duty to dispose of the propositions urged. Should we ■ have sustained the propositions, then we could have considered the evidence brought up by the bills of exception, but certainly we could not sustain his cross-assignments when they are not presented to us in'any brief with appropriate propositions relating thereto. It is, therefore, apparent to us that to grant these motions would be but to prolong this litigation in this court without profit to any one.
Our opinion on original submission was construed by appellant as a suggestion or invitation to appellee to perfect the record after submission, and, while appellant’s counsel did not expressly take issue with the court on its right to make such suggestion, still their reply to appellee’s motions filed herein indicates that they question our right to make such suggestion and the right to perfect a record after submission. It is our interpretation of the decisions that, where the only question about the completeness of the record is whether or not it properly shows jurisdiction of the trial court, it is not only our right, but it is our duty, by express rule, to notify the parties of the deficiency and afford them an opportunity to supply same. Rule 1 for guidance of Courts of Civil Appeals, 142 S. W. x; Patrick v. Pierce, 107 Tex. 620, 183 S. W. 441; Maxwell v. Dorizas (Tex. Civ. App.) 16 S.W.(2d) 432.
We have afforded appellee the opportunity to perfect his record in the instant case, but, believing that he is unable to do so m such manner as to afford him any relief, we overrule all of his motions, including his motion for rehearing.