Court Opinion

ID: 9761278
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 01:37:22.115739+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:21.689540
License: Public Domain

HUGHES, Justice
(concurring).
This appeal purports to be a sixty day appeal as well as an appeal by writ of error under Arts. 2249, 2249a and 2255, Vernon’s Ann.Tex.Civ.St., and applicable rules of civil procedure.
*934I do not determine the validity of the sixty day appeal for the reason that, in my opinion, the case is properly before us by writ of error.
The only objection which appellee makes to the writ of error appeal is that appellant is precluded by Art. 2249a from resorting to this method of appeal because he participated in the actual trial of the case in the trial court.
It is true that appellant did participate in the trial in the justice court. He did not, however, participate in the trial in the county court to which the justice court case was appealed. It is on these facts that appellee would apply Art. 2249a. I disagree.
Trial in the county court on an appeal from a justice court is de novo. Rule 264, T.R.C.P. This means that the judgment rendered in the justice court is vacated and that in the county court the cause is tried anew. The county court, on such appeals, is in no sense an appellate court. It does not review the justice court trial, correct errors therein, nor may it affirm the judgment or remand the cause to the justice court. Hall v. McKee, 179 S.W.2d 590, Tex.Civ.App. Fort Worth.
It is, therefore, my opinion that the trial court within the purview of Art. 2249a is the court rendering the judgment from which the writ of error is sued out. Such court, in this case, was the county court. Since appellant did not participate in the county court trial, he is not precluded from appealing by writ of error.
Barker v. Kidd, by this Court, cited by the majority, holds that it is error to discharge a jury lawfully requested and try an issue of fact before the court even though the adverse party or his counsel, who requested the jury, fail to appear at the trial.
There was at least one issue of fact before the trial court — the amount of reasonable attorney’s fees. Smith v. Texas Co., 53 S.W.2d 774, Tex.Com. of Appeals; Tex.Jur.2d, Vol. 7, Attorneys at Law, Secs. 119 and 125.
Whether there are other questions of fact because of the state of the pleadings, I do not determine for the reason that in all likelihood neither the pleadings nor the evidence will remain unchanged.
I concur in the judgment reversing and remanding this cause.