Court Opinion

ID: 9833684
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 22:56:47.106524+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:44:05.875597
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
[4] The motion of the defendant in error to strike out the transcript in this case, because of inaccuracies therein, or to make a certified copy of their contest of the plaintiff in error’s motion filed in the county to set aside the judgment by default taken in that court, a part of the record in this court, cannot prevail. Rule 22 (142 S. W. xii), relating to the preparation of cases for submission in this court, as recently amended by the Supreme Court, provides: “All parties will be expected, before submission, to see that the transcript of the record is properly prepared, and the mere failure to observe omissions or inaccuracies therein will not be admitted, after submission, as a reason for correcting the record or obtaining a rehearing.” Under this rule the motion to amend or strike out the transcript comes too late and must be overruled.
[5] In their motion for a rehearing the defendants in error contend that we erred in holding that the trial court should not have heard evidence in Opposition to the plaintiff in error’s motion to vacate the default judgment appealed from and determined therefrom that the compromise and release set up in said motion had been effected and procured by fraud and deceit. This contention is predicated, not upon the ground that we did not correctly state the general rule of law upon the subject, but upon the proposition that the record fails to disclose any objection on the part of the plaintiff in error to a trial of this issue in that way. In support of their proposition, defendants in error cite the cases of Sugg v. Thornton, 73 Tex. 666, 9 S. W. 145, and Pacific Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Williams et al., 79 Tex. 633, 15 S. W. 478. These cases were not called to our attention before the written opinion heretofore filed in the case was handed down, and they were overlooked. The eases cited sustain the position now assumed by counsel for the defendant in error; but, for the other reasons given in our opinion, the cause must stand reversed and remanded for a new trial. As stated in our original ■written opinion, the pleadings of the plaintiffs below were insufficient to authorize the judgment by default for the penalty and attorney’s fees therein awarded; nor were the pleadings, as they appear from the transcript sent to this court, sufficient to authorize and support the judgment for the amount of the policy sued on. This condition of the pleadings, as the case was being reversed on other grounds, was simply referred to in our original opinion with the suggestion that the difficulty disclosed by the policy which was attached to and made a part of the plaintiffs’ petition might be and should be corrected by an amendment on another trial.
The motion for a rehearing is overruled.