Court Opinion

ID: 9832730
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 22:08:36.452813+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:50.990628
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing.
It is asserted we erred in considering the. statement of facts herein over the objections of defendant in error, contained in its brief. In our opinion the objections were untenable and called for no comment. In view of the earnest insistence of defendant in error that we erred in considering such statement, we will state our reasons for so doing.
After giving the style of the ease, its number, and the court in which it was pending, the statement which was objected to, reads:
“Statement of Facts.
“Be it remembered that on the trial of the above-entitled cause, the folowing facts were proven and evidence introduced to wit:” (Here follows statement of what was proven by various witnesses, naming them, and copies of documentary evidence.)
At the end thereof appear the signatures of one of the counsel for plaintiffs in error and the trial judge as follows:
“O. K. Geo. A. Titterington.
“Approved, Kenneth Foree, Judge 14th District Court.”
Defendant in error objected to its consideration-for the following reasons:
“First: It shows on its face that it is not a ‘statement of facts’ agreed to by the attorneys in the case, for there is nothing purporting to be an agreement by the attorneys.
“Second: It shows on its face that it is not a statement of all the facts prepared by the trial judge, for it does not in the transcript nor in the paper styled ‘Statement of Facts,’ as prescribed by section 1 of article 2249, Revised Statutes, contain a certificate to that effect, nor that the parties did not or could not agree .upon a statement of facts, nor that the parties submitted their respective statements to the judge, and that the judge prepared and filed the paper mentioned as a statement of all the facts proved on the trial. Nor does it appear as required by section 2, article 2240, R.. S., that the attorneys failed to agree on a ‘statement of facts,’ and that appellant’s counsel, K. R. Oraig and Geo. A. Titterington, within 15 days after adjournment of court or entering of final judgment, presented to the judge a ‘statement of facts’ certified to over their signature to be a full and fair ‘statement of all facts proved on the trial to the best of their knowledge and on belief.’
“Third: And it affirmatively appears that the paper mentioned was not filed within the time prescribed by law.”
it is true this was not a statement of facts agreed to by the parties; but this is of no consequence if the parties failed to agree and the statement was prepared by the trial judge, as provided by law in such cases. In the state of this record the presumption obtains that there was such a disagreement and the statement was prepared by the judge. The fact that the certificate of the judge does not affirmatively so show is unimportant. McGlasson v. Fiorella (Tex. Civ. App.) 228 S. W. 254; Houston Oil Co. v. Myers (Tex. Civ. App.) 150 S. W. 762; Bath v. Railway Co., 34 Tex. Civ. App. 234, 78 S. W. 994; Kelso v. Townsend, 13 Tex. 140; Darcy v. Turner, 46 Tex. 30; McManus v. Wallis, 52 Tex. 534.
As to the objection that it shows upon its face it was not a statement of all the facts, the necessary implication of the opening sentence above quoted is that it was a statement of all the facts proven and evidence adduced upon the trial. We think it wholly inadmissible to say that upon its face the statement shows it did not contain all of the facts proven.
As to the objection with reference to the date of filing, there appears upon the back of the statement, under the cover wrapper this filé mark:
“Filed Jan. 1, 1927. John H. Cullom, Disk Clerk, Dallas Co., Texas, by J. C. Durrett, Deputy.”
On the cover wrapper appears file mark stamped thereon, which reads:
“Filed Jan. 7, 1927. J. B. Finks.” (The rest illegible.)
Another file mark stamped on the cover wrapper shows filing as of January 7, 1927, the date of the month being changed by pen and ink to 1st, and signed by J. B. Finks, district clerk, by W. A. McLaughlin, deputy. This last mentioned file mark was scratched out with pen and ink. Evidently what happened was that the statement of facts was first filed on January 1, 1927, as shown by the first file mark, and later a cover wrapper put on and file mark of January 7th stamped thereon by the newly qualified clerk.
In the absence of anything to impeach the verity of the file mark of January 1, 1927, it should be accepted as correct, and was so accepted by us. January 1, 1927, was within the time limited by the trial court’s extension order and was not too late.
These are the only matters presented by the motion for rehearing which call for comment.
The motion is overruled.