Court Opinion

ID: 9762412
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 02:22:48.661897+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:34.234363
License: Public Domain

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
The stipulation of the parties was made in open Court and included in the Statement of Facts which is approved by Appellant’s attorney. Thus, it complies with Rule 11, T.R.C.P.
The effect of the wording appears clear. If the promissory note held by Appellee is invalid, then the funds on deposit would be delivered to Appellant. If not, then judgment would be entered for Appellee “in all things.” Appellant’s judgment against the Defendant corporation and other defend*124ants was stipulated. The only apparent controversy was over the balance of money on deposit in the corporate account in the Appellee bank. We are at a loss to understand why the Appellant would so stipulate, yet, this Court being called upon to review the record made in the lower Court can only rule on the points of error presented to determine the correctness of the lower Court procedure. Thus, according to the stipulation, if the note was a valid promissory note, then Appellant would not recover.
Thereupon, the Appellee undertook to prove the note and to exhibit its validity from its standpoint. Appellant undertook to show that insofar as the Defendant corporation was concerned that the note resulted from internal mismanagement and wrongdoing on the part of the corporate officers. This would, of course, have no bearing on the bank’s right of offset or counterclaim or any other claim to the deposit unless it were shown that the bank was a participant in the alleged wrongdoing. At the same time, Appellant concedes that the Appellee’s claim against the corporation was valid. Thus, the alleged internal mismanagement within the corporation is not relevant or material insofar as any controversy that exists between Appellant and Appellee. All evidence introduced supports the validity of the note. The effect of this opinion, however, must be limited to the situation existing here arising out of the stipulation of counsel.
In reviewing the stipulation, the record indicates that counsel were in agreement as well as the Court, since the Court remarked that the single issue under the stipulation involved only the validity of the note. Appellant’s counsel stated:
“If the Court please, we have stipulated as to the judgment, and I think that the only question is as to the note.”
The Courts favor stipulations to expedite litigation, and as a general rule valid stipulations are binding on the parties and the Courts. Early v. Burns, Tex.Civ.App., 142 S.W.2d 260 (writ ref.); Westridge Villa Apartments, et al. v. Lakewood Bank and Trust Company, Tex.Civ.App., 438 S.W.2d 891 (Ref. n. r. e.).
Stipulations may be modified or withdrawn at the discretion of the trial Court. 53 Tex.Jur.2d, Secs. 26 and 27, pages 348-350; McDonald, Texas Civil Practice, Vol. 3, Sec. 10.12.3. The Appellant did not see fit to request any action or relief from the trial Court subsequent to the hearing or entry of the judgment.
We overrule Appellant’s Motion for Rehearing.