Court Opinion

ID: 9771982
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 17:03:56.953547+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:31:40.754746
License: Public Domain

ON APPELLANTS’ MOTION FOR REHEARING
BATEMAN, Justice.
In their motion for rehearing appellants take us to task for stating in the eighth paragraph of the above opinion that appellants made no request for additional or amended findings pursuant to Rule 298, T. R.C.P. A clarifying statement is in order.
In a supplemental transcript we find what is designated as a “request for Additional Findings and Conclusions of Fact and Law,” as follows:
“Now comes Defendants in the above-named and referenced cause, and hereby file their Request for the Trial Court to state in writing additional conclusions of fact found by the Court separately from the conclusions of law as to the constitutional issues raised in Paragraph 6 of Defendants’ First Amended Original Answer.”
The pertinent part of Rule 298, T.R.C.P., is in the first sentence thereof, as follows: “After the judge so files original findings of fact and conclusions of law, either party may, within five days, request of him specified further, additional, or amended findings ; * * (Italics ours.)
The so-called request for additional findings and conclusions does not in our opinion comply with Rule 298, for as said by Judge Critz in Wagner v. Riske, 142 Tex. 337, 178 S.W.2d 117, 120 (1944), “Rule 298 contemplates that the request for further additional or amended findings * * * shall specify the further additional or amended findings that the party making the request desires the trial court to make and file.” Therefore, we think the trial court correctly overruled the request for such additional findings and, in fact, appellants do not complain of that action of the court.
The motion for rehearing is overruled.
CLAUDE WILLIAMS, J., not sitting.