Court Opinion

ID: 9828982
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 18:54:24.855022+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:56.160695
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
It was said in the original opinion that—
“It appears from the record that the trustees of the two districts depleted by the operation of the act, but not named in the title, * * * knew nothing whatever of the proposed legislation until the act was finally passed by both Houses.”
Counsed for appellant in their motion for rehearing assert with obvious impatience that there is nothing in the record to show the facts stated, “or anything similar” to them, and approach dangerously near to a charge that this court has deliberately misstated the record. We therefore feel called upon to support the statement mentioned, by quoting the trial court’s thirteenth finding of fact, at page 59 of the transcript, which finding appellant has not challenged on this appeal:
“Plaintiffs did not know that said act was proposed to be enacted, nor that it was enacted, until after same was filed in the office of the *492secretary of state and did not consent to the creation of an act diminishing their territories and making the changes in their boundaries.”
Appellant also, attacks the statement in the original opinion that “approximately 11 per cent, of the territory and revenues of the Agua Dulce independent school district, and a smaller portion of common school district No. 4,” were embraced in the proposed new district. This statement in the opinion, however, was based upon the unchallenged findings of the trial court (paragraph 10, Tr. 57) that the “territory excised” from the Agua Dulce district amounts to “about 11 per cent, of the area” of said district, and that taken from district 4 amounts to about 2 per cent, of its area, while 10 per cent, of the taxable values was tjaken from the Agua Dulce district, and 1 per cent, from district 4.
It will he seen, then, that appellants’ a'ttacks upon the statements mentioned are without warrant, since those statements were based upon and amply supported by affirmative findings made by the trial court and brought forward into the transcript. As those findings are not challenged by any assignment of error presented by appellant, we assumed on submission, and must still assume, that they are based upon evidence sufficient to support them.
Appellate courts are bound by the facts as found by the trial court, unless those findings are challenged by assignments of error, duly filed and prosecuted on appeal by the complaining party. If the trial court’s findings in the matters mentioned were not supported by evidence, it was the duty of appellant to challenge them on appeal and point out the discrepancies and errors therein to this court. Having failed to do this, appellant alone is responsible for the supposed injustice resulting therefrom.
The motion for rehearing is overruled.