Court Opinion

ID: 9759904
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 00:32:18.479457+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:06.036163
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing
It will be noted that Associate Justice WILLIAMS did not choose to participate in above decision, having been the trial judge, although not legally disqualified thereby. Appellant now raises the point that our Constitution provides for a three judge Court of Civil Appeals for a review or determinations made by the trial court; and that an affirmance by two of the judges of this Court of the action taken by the third judge while a trial judge is unconstitutional, illegal and void. Art. 1812, V.A.C.S., provides that each Court of Civil Appeals shall consist of a Chief Justice and two Associate Justices and that a majority shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business, and the concurrence of two Justices shall be necessary to a decision. Art. 1815, V.A.C.S., states after all or any two members of any Court of Civil Appeals shall be disqualified to determine any cause in such court, that fact shall be certified to the Governor, who shall immediately commission the requisite number of persons, learned in the law, to try and determine said cause. It has long been a settled law that Art. 1815 is not in conflict with the Constitution, Art. 5, § 11; and the fact that one member is alone disqualified (not true in the instant case) does not prevent the other members from lawfully proceeding therewith. Nalle v. City of Austin, 85 Tex. 520, 22 S.W. 668.
Appellant challenges as without support in the record the statement in our opinion: “ * * * appellant testified that a few days prior to their separation she had discussed with her attorney and later, before final decree was granted, matters relative to a property settlement * * * The point is overruled. See statement of facts pages 58, through page 62. We inadvertently failed to pass expressly on appellant’s point three in brief. Same has been duly considered and is also overruled.
Motion for rehearing is accordingly in all respects overruled.