Court Opinion

ID: 9830963
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 20:39:44.043223+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:28.710135
License: Public Domain

Oh Motion for Rehearing.
On a former day of this term of this court we dismissed the appeal in this case for want of jurisdiction because the record did not contain a transcript of the proceedings in the justice court. Appellant has filed *433a motion for rehearing, and his first proposition is that we erred in holding that he had failed to include in the record a transcript of the justice court proceedings, for in that the same were included in the statement of facts. This contention is overruled. The transcript of the proceedings in the justice court must be in the transcript of the proceedings in the county court, on appeal from the county court to this court, and not in the statement of facts. Its inclusion in the statement of facts is not sufficient. Article 2459 (2396 — 97), R. S. 1925; American Soda Fountain Co. v. Mason, 55 Tex. Civ. App. 532, 119 S. W. 714; Patrick v. Pierce, 107 Tex. 620, 183 S. W. 441.
Appellant’s second proposition is that we erred in dismissing his appeal without affording him an opportunity to correct the record, by presenting a proper transcript in this court. We dismissed the appeal by virtue of rule.22 for the government of Courts of Civil Appeals, which specifically provides that “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.’’ However, appellant has called our attention to the case of Patrick v. Pierce, 107 Tex. 620, 183 S. W. 441, in which the Supreme Court, in answer to certified questions covering the question here involved, held that rules 1 and 22 for the Courts of Civil Appeals were in conflict, and that the provisions ■ of rule 1 should prevail in favor of the appeal. So, in deference to that holding, we grant the motion for rehearing, and, as appellant has attached a proper transcript to his motion for rehearing, we will accept same and dispose of the case on its merits. See Hamilton v. Hannus (Tex. Civ. App.) 185 S. W. 938; Texas Glass & Paint Co. v. Darnell Lumber Corporation (Tex. Civ. App.) 185 S. W. 965.