Court Opinion

ID: 9833396
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 22:40:56.010939+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:44:02.326845
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing.
In the original opinion it was stated the erasure and interlineation in the appeal bond was done with the consent of the surety. The assumption that this was done with the consent of the surety was based upon the fact that in the brief of the appel-lees and upon oral argument it was so stated by counsel for appellees. Such statement was not challenged by the appellant. In the motion for rehearing counsel for appellant assert the record does not show the change was made with the consent ofj the surety, and upon examination of the record we find this is true. This condition of the record, however, presents no ground for reversal. Upon appeal, all presumptions not contradicted by or inconsistent with the record are in favor of the ruling of the trial court. Error is never presumed. The burden is upon the party complaining to show affirmatively by the record error was committed. The record here does not show the change in the bond was made without the consent of the surety. It was done in open court. It will not be presumed the court permitted such change without such consent. - The presumption here is the change was made with the consent of the surety. 3 Tex.Jur., Appeal and Error, §§ 734 and 741.
The motion for rehearing is overruled.