Court Opinion

ID: 9759410
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 00:15:15.885586+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:04:07.123406
License: Public Domain

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
GREENHILL, Chief Justice.
In the oral argument before this court, there were several questions from the bench as to how this case was actually tried in the District Court.
The court was informed that the attorneys for the respective parties had tried the case under a procedure of their own making. As stated in the brief of Josephine Viscardi in the Court of Civil Appeals:
“Actually, although the pleadings are entitled Motions for Summary Judgment, this case was in effect tried upon the stipulated merits by a procedure created and agreed to by the parties for the purpose of speedy justice and so as not to waste at least one week of the trial court’s time . . ..”
Among the stipulations of the parties are these:
“12. That, if this case were brought to trial on the merits, the testimony taken in the hearing for temporary injunctions, heard before this Court on June 16,1976, would be repeated by those persons who so testified.
“13. That, for the purposes of any hearing on motion for summary judgment, the Court may make its own findings of fact based upon the pleadings and the testimony heretofore filed and made a part herein, upon these stipulations, and upon the other documents and exhibits contained herein, plus the affidavits filed in connection with any motion for summary judgment.”
Upon such oral argument, there was inquiry about how there could be reference to testimony taken at a former hearing, an agreement that the trial court could make its own findings of fact, and still have a trial upon motions for summary judgment. Counsellor both parties were questioned at length on this matter. As indicated, the court was informed that by agreement of counsel, the case was submitted to the trial court upon its agreed merits in which the trial court could make findings of fact.
Accordingly, this court accepted the representations of counsel and decided the case upon its merits, including the power of the trial court to make findings of fact. And accordingly, the point in the motion for rehearing that this court erred in failing to treat the case only as one tried upon conventional motions for summary judgment is overruled.
We add that while counsel were undoubtedly acting with proper and honorable motives, it is suggested that the better practice is to try cases by the rules as they are written. In following that course, they and the appellate courts will find it easier to have matters adjudicated without questions such have been here presented.
Counsel for Pajestka on the motion for rehearing, states that the Court of Civil Appeals made a factual finding that “an examination of the terms of the conveyance shows that the bank did not intend a public dedication.” 562 S.W.2d at 15. It is then argued that the Court of Civil Appeals is authorized to make fact findings, and that this court is not. This court did not make findings of fact: it held that the trial court made implied findings of fact in the non-conventional trial, and that there was evidence to support such findings.
The motion for rehearing is overruled.
*21No further motion for rehearing will be entertained.
POPE J., not sitting.