Court Opinion

ID: 9662493
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 23:10:47.026624+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:40.026775
License: Public Domain

On. Motion For Rehearing.
PER CURIAM.
Appellees, have filed an able motion for rehearing, in which they -challenge our disposition of this case. They take, the position that no affidavit -was filed in-the case; and, no affidavit being filed, according to their contention', the trial court had no alternative but to grant thé 'motion ■ for summary' judgment. They rely -most- heavily upon the case of Sparkman v. McWhirter, Tex.Giv.App., 263 S.W.2d 832, wr. ref., as the basis for their contention.-
Appellees further take the position that the pleading filed by appellant in reply to their motion for summary judgment and ■ designated “defendant’s amended answer to plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment’-’ is merely a sworn ■ pleading and can not be considered' as an affidavit. The instrument so designated is written in the first person, and contains every prerequisite required by the rule. We have concluded that this pleading is in truth and in fact an affidavit whether or not it was so designated. ■
In addition to that, appellant’s deposition had been taken and was offered in evidence by -the appellees. The deposition covers about’ 7 pages in the Statement of Facts compiled upon the hearing on the motion. ‘ This deposition shows to have been taken in strict compliance with the *470law and constitutes sworn testimony on file in the case at the time the motion for summary judgment was heard. The testimony given in this deposition unquestionably contradicts the affidavits relied upon by appellees and raises fact issues.
We do not construe Rule 166-A as making the filing of an affidavit mandatory. Section (c) of the Rule provides:
“The motion shall be served at least ten days before the time specified for the hearing. The adverse party prior to the day of hearing ‘may’ serve opposing affidavits. The judgment sought shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, depositions, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that, except as to the amount of damages, there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” (Quotes and emphasis added.)
Appellees seem to take the position that a motion for summary judgment can be contested by affidavits only. With this contention we do not agree, and have placed emphasis on the quoted part above to more clearly show that the filing of affidavits in reply to a motion for summary judgment is not mandatory if there are other matters of record such as depositions, exhibits, judicial notice, admissions, etc., apparent in the record that would create a fact issue in opposition to the motion. As pointed out in 11 Baylor Law Review 327, citing Brown v. Ford Motor Co., D.C., 57 F.Supp. 825; Friedman v. Washburn Co., 7 Cir., 145 F.2d 715; Washington v. Maricopa County, 9 Cir., 143 F. 2d 871; United States v. Philadelphia, 3 Cir., 140 F.2d 406; Fletcher v. Evening Star Newspaper, 77 U.S.App.D.C. 99, 133 F.2d 395, and other authorities:
“The evidence may consist of depositions, affidavits, exhibits, judicial notice, formal admissions resulting from failure to deny those requested, stipulations, pre-trial agreements * * ”.
We have again carefully reviewed the record in this case and every authority cited by appellees in their motion for rehearing, as well as many other articles and authorities, and still remain convinced that the conclusion reached in our original opinion is correct.
Appellees’ motion for rehearing is overruled.