Court Opinion

ID: 9833466
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 22:44:43.01346+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:44:03.282455
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
A motion for rehearing has been filed both by appellants and appellee.
In appellee’s motion our attention is called to the fact that the record shows that trustee Layne redelivered the Box check to the Temple bank on October 14, 1920, whereas we stated in our opinion that this occurred on October 13th. The error is unimportant. *496We acknowledge it) however, and make correction accordingly.
Appellant in its motion objects to our holding that the evidence does not support the trial court’s finding to the effect that the assignment of the Nolanville bank to Layne, trustee, in so far as it included the deposit in Temple bank to the extent of the checks previously drawn against that deposit, did not represent the real intention of the parties, and should be reformed so as •to exclude the deposit to the extent named. This objection is based upon two grounds: Eirst, that there was no cross-assignment of error filed in the trial court raising the issue; and, second, that the evidence was sufficient to support the finding.
Concerning the second ground, it is only necessary to say that we are clear in the view that we have given the evidence the only interpretation of which it will fairly admit. We do not deem it necessary to set forth the evidence upon this issue in detail. This has been done with much care in ap-pellee’s brief and in appellants’ motion for rehearing.
We have reached the conclusion, after careful consideration of the first ground, that it should be overruled.
District Court rule 101, which governs the matter of cross-assignments by the appellee provides that they may be incorporated in the brief, but need not be copied in the transcript.
Appellee filed in the trial court what he styled his exceptions to the judge’s findings of fact and conclusions of law, urging that the finding and conclusion to the effect that the assignment to Dayne, trustee, embraced the portion of the deposit in question by mistake and should be corrected in that regard, “is not supported by, but is contrary to, the testimony adduced in the trial of the cause.”
. These exceptions were carried into appel-lee’s brief, and appropriate propositions presented, briefed, and argued upon this issue. No objection to consideration of the issue as raised was made by appellant prior to its motion for rehearing.
The authorities hold, quite generally, that cross-assignments of error will not be considered on appeal when not filed in the trial court. But we are not prepared to hold that Courts of Civil Appeals, upon reversing a judgment of the trial court, are precluded from looking beyond the findings of. the trial court in determining the proper disposition to be made of the case, merely because the successful party in the trial court has not followed up an exception to an averse finding of fact and conclusion of law, with a formal cross-assignment of error.
Where a judgment of the trial court is reversed, the appellate court is vested with a wide discretion in determining the proper disposition to be made of the cause. We would not be warranted, we think, in setting aside the trial court’s findings and conclusions only in the respect complained of by appellant, leaving them intact in the respects favorable to 'appellant, where the statement of facts shows that the latter findings' and conclusions are without support in the record. That in the interest of reaching a proper disposition of the case the appellate, court has the power, after setting aside the findings and conclusions of the trial court in part, to set them aside in toto, we have no doubt. However, we have reached the conclusion that it may better-serve the ends of justice to remand the cause generally as to appellants and appellees without instructions to the trial court.
It is accordingly ordered that our foriner judgment be set aside, and judgment entered as follows: That as to appellants and ap-pellee Box, individually and as a creditor in behalf of Dayne, trustee of the Nolanville bank, the judgment of the trial court is reversed, and the cause remanded to that court, for a new trial in accordance with nur former opinion herein. In all other respects the trial court’s judgment is affirmed. Except as they may be thus modified, both motions are overruled.
Overruled except as modified.