Court Opinion

ID: 9760151
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 00:41:27.734986+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:08.552059
License: Public Domain

DAVIS, Justice.
I dissent. Plaintiffs-appellants, Jessie Arena Holland and husband, Jesse Holland, sued defendants-appellees, Foley Brothers Dry Goods Company, Inc., Federal Department Stores, Inc., and Alfred Lewis Holder, for damages alleged to have been sustained by Jessie Holland and a truck belonging to the corporate appellees and being driven by appellee Holder.
Trial was to a jury and judgment was entered on December 2, 1957, that appellants take nothing. Appellants filed a motion for a new trial on December 12, 1957. Being unable to get it heard and determined within the 45-day period of time fixed by Rule 329-b, V.A.T.R.C.P., appellants’ counsel entered into a written agreement with counsel for appellees on January 24, 1958, within the 45-day period of time, as follows (omitting. caption):
“To the Honorable Judge of said Court:
“Comes Now the attorneys of record for the Plaintiffs and defendants, and, pursuant to Rule 329-B, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, agree as follows:
“I.
“That the hearing for the hearing of, and the decision on, the Plaintiffs’ Motion for New Trial may be postponed beyond such time limits as are set out in said Rule 329-B.
“II.
“The parties further agree that the said Motion may be heard on Monday, *433January 27, 1958 at the conveniénce of the Court, or, at the earliest practicable date thereafter convenient to the Court.
“Respectfully submitted
“Smith & Lehmann
By: /s/ T. O. McWhorter Thomas O. McWhorter Attorney for Plaintiffs, Jessie Arena Holland, Et Vir.
“Baker, Botts, Andrews & Shepherd
By: /s/ Charles Tighe Attorney for 'Defendants.”
The motion for new trial was heard on January 27, 1958, but the order overruling the same was not signed until February 20, 1958.
The order overruling the motion (omitting ' the caption) reads as follows:
“On the 27th day of January, 1958, came on to be heard the Motion of the Plaintiffs for a New Trial in the above entitled and numbered cause; and the parties having filed in this cause an agreement that the decision on said motion might be postponed, in accordance with Rule 329-B, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, beyond such time limits as are set out in said Rule, and the Court in its discretion having postponed the time for hearing of such motion in accordance with said Rule, and such motion having been thus presented to the Court in due time, manner and form, and with due notice, and, the Court having taken the said motion under advisement, and it appearing to the Court that such motion should be overruled,
“It is hereby accordingly Ordered, Adjudged and Decreed that the same be, and it is hereby overruled.
“To which action and ruling of the Court the plaintiffs excepted and gave notice of appeal to the Court of Civil Appeals for the First Supreme Judicial District of Texas, sitting at Houston, Texas.
“Done and Entered at Houston, Texas, on the 20th day of February, 1958.
“/s/ Phil Peden
Judge Presiding
“Approved as to Form:
“Smith & Lehmann By /s/ T. 0. McWhorter Attorneys for Plaintiffs
“Baker, Botts, Andrews & Shepherd By /s/ Charles L. Tighe Attorneys for Defendants.”
Appellants filed their appeal bond on March 14, 1958.
It is my considered opinion that if “substantial justice” is done in this case and Rule 1, V.A.T.R.C.P., is complied with that this Court has jurisdiction of this appeal. This is also in keeping with the sound rule announced in the case of Hamill v. Samuels, 104 Tex. 46, 133 S.W. 419, 421, wherein Mr. Chief Justice Brown said: “It-is the policy of the Legislature and of the courts to construe liberally all provisions of the statutes so as to secure the right of appeal.” If liberal construction is given to Rule 329-b and Rule 306a, V.A.T.R.C.P., then the appeal bond is filed in time.
Now, I invite careful attention to the wording of the agreement and the order of the court overruling the motion for a new trial. There can readily be seen a distinction in this agreement and the authorities cited in support of the opinion. I also invite a careful study of Rules 1 and 306a, supra. I will not try to point out in detail the differences in the agreement in the cases cited and the agreement in this case. Of course, some of the agreements in the cases cited were made after the motion for rehearing had already been overruled by operation of law. Unquestionably, if the court had pronounced his judgment on *434the motion for rehearing on January 27, 19S8, and had not signed the order overruling the same until February 20, 1958, the appeal would have been timely perfected. There is not anything in the rules that prohibits a trial court from taking such matters under advisement. To construe Rule 329-b, supra, to the effect that a trial court could not take a matter of such importance as we have before us, with the points raised and the volume of the record under advisement and to act within a reasonable time is to place a construction upon a rule of procedure that is extremely narrow and would only have as its purpose to defeat justice.
Undoubtedly counsel for appellees, counsel for appellants and the trial court construed the agreement to be in conformity with Rule 329-b, supra. To construe the agreement to be in compliance with Rule 329-b, or to construe Rule 306a as being applicable would not be nearly so liberal a construction of the rules of procedure as that given in Houston Life Ins. Co. v. Dabbs, Tex.Com.App., 125 Tex. 100, 81 S.W.2d 42, opinion adopted by Sup.Ct., in holding that where a motion for new trial is overruled by operation of law that no notice of appeal is necessary regardless of the inflexible requirements of the then current rules requiring the giving of notice of appeal; now Rule 353, V.A.T. R.C.P.
If a trial court can give so much time to a trial on the merits, Jones v. Jimmer-son, Tex.Civ.App., 302 S.W.2d 161, wr. ref. n. r. e., where the court heard all testimony in two days and then continued it until the eighth term thereafter, and then be denied the right to hear the testimony on a motion for a new trial and take the same under advisement for a short while is not adequate to me.
If the “Substantial Justice Rule” has any application at all in Texas, the Supreme Court should grant a writ of error in this and reverse the foregoing opinion. The foregoing opinion is based upon a construction of a rule of procedure, not of substantive law. As pointed out in Chambers v. Fisk, 15 Tex. 335, “Substantial Justice” is justice administered according to the rules of substantive law notwithstanding errors of procedure. Interstate Bankers Corp. v. Kennedy, D.C.Mun.App., 33 A.2d 165; 40 Words and Phrases, Substantial Justice, p. 503.
I would grant the motion for new trial and reinstate the opinion of this court handed down January 20, 1959.