Court Opinion

ID: 9834000
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 23:12:50.557163+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:46.368714
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
In its motion for rehearing appellant, for the first time, challenges the jurisdiction of the district court over the subject-matter of this suit, upon the ground that it was not shown that the matter in controversy was adjudicated by the Industrial Accident Board before the institution of this suit, as required by the Workmen’s Compensation Act (Vernon’s Ann. Civ. St. Supp. 1918, art. 5246—1 et. seq.).
Appellant itself instituted this action in the district court, being dissatisfied with the award made by the Accident Board. It selected that forum, thus assuming the burden of showing jurisdiction therein. It filed its petition, procured issuance and seiwice of process, participated in the trial, filed motion for new trial, and prosecuted appeal to this court, thus pursuing the course of its own selection, through the very forums it had invoked for the adjudication of its rights. As plaintiff below, however, appellant did not allege that the claim had been adjudicated by the Accident Board, which allegation it now contends was essential to give the district court jurisdiction. But appellees, as defendants below, did allege these facts in their answer and cross-action, and so, if these allegations were essential to show jurisdiction, the incorporation of the same into the answer and cross-action would be construed in aid of the petition, thus giving jurisdiction so far as the pleadings were concerned. Hill v. George, 5 Tex. 87; Hudson v. Willis, 65 Tex. 694; Doby v. Sanders (Tex. Civ. App.) 198 S. W. 806.
Appellant contends also that the record does not show any evidence of the fact that the claim involved had been adjudicated by the Industrial Accident Board, and that such showing of fact was essential to give the trial court jurisdiction. The proceedings and award of the Accident Board were not admissible in evidence upon the trial of this suit (article 5246—44, Vernon’s Ann. Civ. St. Supp. 1918; Employers’ Association v. Downing, 218 S. W. 112), and therefore the fact of adjudication by the board could not be shown in that way. But certified copies of these proceedings and award, which constitute the best evidence of the recited facts, were filed among the papers in the court below, before trial, showing such adjudication, so that by inspection thereof, the trial judge was satisfied of the alleged jurisdictional fact. Employers, etc., v. Downing, supra. It is true that copies of these papers were not contained in the original record brought up to this court, but since the filing of appellant’s motion for rehearing, raising the question of jurisdiction based on the absence of this showing, the record has been completed by certiorari, at the instance of appellee, and this court now has before it the full evidence which was before the trial court, showing the claim herein to have been adjudicated by the Accident Board. If such showing was necessary to give the district court jurisdiction, a question not necessary to decide here, then it has been made in this case.
It is difficult to pass over without comment the attitude appellant has assumed in this casé. Having selected its forum, it omitted from its petition allegations which it now contends were essential to give jurisdiction to that forum. This difficulty was cured by appellees, however, thus depriving appellant of the power to take advantage of its own omission. Jurisdiction having been thus established in the pleadings, it was also established as a matter of fact, not by appellant, on whom the burden lay, but by appellees, who filed the evidence thereof in the court below. The burden and duty rested upon appellant to have this evidence incorporated into the record brought to this court, but it failed to meet this burden or perform this duty, and the evidence was omitted from the record, and appellant seeks in this court to take advantage thereof by asserting a lack of jurisdiction based upon the absence from the original record of this very evidence, which has now been supplied by certiorari at the instance of appellees.
Appellant’s motion for rehearing is overruled.