Court Opinion

ID: 9830481
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 20:14:36.494933+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:23.282541
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
[12,13] Appellant insists that we erred in holding that, where there is a statement of facts in the record, the failure of the court to find a material fact necessary to support a conclusion of law is not reversible error. Upon further investigation, we find that this contention is correct. While it is the rule that the failure of the trial court to file findings and conclusions is not cause for which the courts have reversed judgments, when there is a statement of facts, the rule is equally well established that a conclusion of law going to the merits of the case must be supported by a corresponding finding of fact. As stated in the original opinion, the court did not find that Bogart and wife had abandoned the homestead, but merely' recited their testimony upon that point without a finding either .way; but did conclude as a matter of law that they had abandoned it prior to the execution of the deed of trust. There being no finding of fact upon which this conclusion could have been based, a judgment in accordance with such conclusion is erroneous and must be reversed. Edwards v. Ohisholm (Sup.) 6 S. W. 558; Sanders v. Sheran, 66 Tex. 656, 2 S. W. 804; Farmer v. Hale, 14 Tex. Civ. App. 73, 37 S. W. 164; Zachariae v. Swanson, 77 S. W. 627; West End Town Co. v. Grigg, 93 Tex. 456, 56 S. W. 49; Texas Midland Ry. Co. v. Johnson, 65 S. W. 388.
Appellant further contends in the motion that we erred in the original opinion with reference to the effect of the decree rendered in the bankruptcy proceedings in the federal court. We do not assent to this, contention. It is expressly provided by section 17 of the Bankruptcy Act (Act July 1, 1898, e. 541, 30 Stat. 550 [U. S. Comp. St. 1913, § 9601]) that a discharge shall release a bankrupt from all of his provable debts except such as have never been duly scheduled in time for proof and allowance, with the name of the creditor, if known to the bankrupt, unless such creditor had actual notice or knowledge of the proceedings in bankruptcy.
[14] The burden of proving that the bank’s debt in the instant case was duly scheduled, and that the bank had either statutory or other actual notice of the proceedings, rested upon appellant. Fields v. Rust, 36 Tex. Civ. App. 350, 82 S. W. 331. As stated, in Third Ruling Case Law, p. 338, § 155:
“In as much as a discharge is for the benefit of the bankrupt, and the omission of a claim from the schedule is due to his default, it is said to be well settled that the burden is upon him to prove that the omitted creditor had the requisite notice or knowledge of the proceedings.”
Unless appellee’s claim was properly scheduled, or appellee had actual notice of the bankruptcy proceedings in time to prove its claim, they would certainly not be bound by the judgment in any particular. Third R. O. L. “Bankruptcy,” § 155.
The motion for rehearing is overruled in part and granted in part, and the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.