Court Opinion

ID: 9827550
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 17:39:16.776377+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:33.223958
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
With the filing by appellants of their motion for rehearing they also filed a motion for certiorari to 'perfect the record so as to show that the trial court in fact heard and overruled their motion for new trial. Under rules 1 and 22 governing Courts of Civil Appeals (142 S.W. x and xii), we were somewhat in doubt of our authority to permit an amendment of the record after submission and after the decision of the case, based upon the assumption that the motion for new trial was not acted upon by the trial court. Upon a consideration of the opinions in Patrick v. Pierce, 107 Tex. 620, 183 S.W. 441; Blalock v. Slocomb, Tex.Com.App., 245 S.W. 648, and Houston & T. C. R. Co. v. Parker, 104 Tex. 162, 135 S.W. 369, we granted the motion for certiorari, upon the theory of the existence of a reasonable doubt of appellants’ right to have the record amended and the policy of the law to resolve such doubt in favor of the right of appeal. In response to that action, appellants submit for filing a supplemental transcript showing only a certified copy of a part of the judge’s trial docket, consisting of certain notations upon said docket. Such notations constitute no part of the record in the case. They were properly omitted from the transcript and are ineffective to show that the trial court heard and overruled appellants’ motion for new trial.
That notations on the judge’s docket do not constitute a part of. the record on appeal seems to be well settled: Burleson v. Moffett, Tex.Civ.App., 3 S.W.2d 544, and cases cited; Erwin v. Griffin, Tex.Civ.App., 24 S.W.2d 78, and cases cited; Johnson v. Williams, Tex.Civ.App., 24 S.W.2d 79; Beasley v. Duplex Truck Co., Tex.Civ.App., 30 S.W.2d 404; Ezell v. Knapp & Elliott, Tex.Civ.App., 40 S.W.2d 1110; McElwrath v. Dixon, Tex.Civ.App., 49 S.W.2d 995.
We do not wish to be understood as affirming the proposition that appellant was entitled to correct the record, even if the supplemental transcript had contained a properly authenticated order overruling the motion for new trial. The absence of such an order from a transcript does not show a want of jurisdiction of the court of civil appeals, as our opinion ■ shows. Its absence from the transcript *71was no notice to the clerk of this court that the case had not been properly prepared for submission. Before submission appellants were apprised of the fact that the transcript contained no order overruling the motion for new trial since that was pointed out in appellees’ brief. The policy expressed by the above mentioned Rules is, as declared in the decisions cited, that both parties are charged with the responsibility of seeing that a case is properly prepared for submission, subject to the power of the court to ascertain matters of its own jurisdiction.
Appellants’ motion for rehearing presents no question for review not dependent upon the correction of the record, if incorrect, so as to show that the trial court acted upon and overruled the motion for rehearing. The record not disclosing that fact, it is our conclusion that the motion for rehearing should be overruled and it is accordingly so ordered.