Court Opinion

ID: 9831007
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 20:42:06.435093+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:29.326833
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
The appellant, in his motion for rehearing, insists that we erred in refusing to consider his assignments of error “because the failure of appellant to file his seven bills of exceptions within the statutory time was due to the inexcusable negligence of both counsel for the appellee, inasmuch as appellant had prepared his seven bills of exceptions within ample time, and inasmuch as counsel for appellee had negligently detained said bills of exceptions for examination until the statutory time had expired.” Affidavits alleging facts which tend to support this insistence have been filed in this court, and our consideration of them requested. A thorough investigation has convinced us that we are not authorized to comply with this request, however much we might be disposed to do so. The appellee has filed an answer to appellant’s motion, and an issue of fact, as to who is responsible for the failure to have the bills of exception .filed within the time allowed, is sharply drawn. Such an issue of fact presented for decision for the first time in this court by affidavits, cannot be entertained and determined. This court has no such jurisdiction. This is affirmed in disposing of similar questions by decisions of appellate courts of this state. Brown v. Torrey, 22 Tex. 54; Chrisman v. Graham, 51 Tex. 454; Von Boeckmann v. Loepp, 73 S. W. 849. A statement of facts or bills of exception cannot be supplied by affidavits. Live Oak County v. Heaton, 39 Tex. 499. Except for ascertaining matters of fact necessary to the proper exercise of their jurisdiction, Courts of Civil Appeals are confined to the record as made by the trial court. W. B. Walker & Son v. Allen, 95 S. W. 585; Willis & Bro. v. Smith et al., 90 Tex. 635, 40 S. W. 401; Telegraph Co. v. Christenson, 78 S. W. 744; Holliday v. Sampson, 42 Tex. Civ. App. 364, 95 S. W. 643; Bank v. Milling Co., 152 S. W. 663.
The objections to paragraphs of the court’s genera] charge would, it seexns, have been sufficient to have entitled aupellant to invoke the judgment of this court as to the correctness of those paragraphs, had the. record shown that the objections had been presented to the trial judge before his charge was read to the jury, without formal bills of exception reserved to the giving of them, but this the record does not show, as pointed out in our original opinion. In order, however, to have the court’s action in giving the special charges requested by appellee review*205ed on appeal, it was necessary, under numerous decisions oí this state, ior appellant to present the matter in this court by proper bill of exception filed in the lower court within the time required by law. Railway Co. v. Dickey (Tex.) 187 S. W. 184.
The appeal upon the record sent to this court has been properly disposed of, and the motion for rehearing must be overruled; and it is so ordered.