Court Opinion

ID: 9834513
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 23:38:54.664208+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:44:16.642243
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
Appellee urgently but respectfully insists that on the original hearing we evidently did not read the authorities he cited, such as Owen v. Smith, 203 S. W. 1171; Railway Co. v. Tuggle, 196 S. W. 910; Beavers v. Order of Pilgrims, 204 S. W. 719; Kyle v. Blanchette, 158 S. W. 796. He is in error; we not only read all the authorities cited by both appellee and appellant, but many others. It is true that in the authorities cited by appellee, and in most of those cited by appellant, it affirmatively appeared that the request for findings of fact and conclusions of law were made in writing. But the statute does not require this. It doubtless is the better practice, and we believe ought to be the required practice, but article 1989, Rev. Civ. Stats., reads:
“Upon a trial by the court, the judge shall, at the request of either of the parties, state in writing the conclusion of fact found by him,” etc.
It is true that in Wandry v. Williams, 103 Tex. 91, 124 S. W. 85, the Supreme Court, says:
“The statute only requires that a request shall be filed, [emphasis ours] that the judge shall make out his conclusions of fact and law.”
But we conclude that the use of the word “filed” was accidental, and was not called for by the wording of the statute. Article 1918 defines what is meant by pleadings, and certainly this request is not a pleading. Article 2118, Civ. Stats., requires the clerk shall keep a motion docket, “in which he shall enter every motion filqfi ⅛ this court”; but neither here is the requirement made that all motions or requests made by parties litigant of the judge or court shall be in writing. In the absence of statutory provisions or rules of court requiring it, motions need not be reduced to writing, but may be made orally. 28 Cyc. p. 6, § C. When no fact is necessary to be found by the trial court passing upon the motion or request, and no question of law is involved, and no notice to the opposite party is required, but it is merely to invoke an action by the judge which the statute makes mandatory on his part, we conclude that neither our statutes nor the rules of practice in our courts require such request to be made in writing. 19 R. C. L. 672, 673; Bouvier’s Law Dict. 2265.
Hence, while regretting the absence of a statute requiring this kind of a motion to be in writing, we conclude that the motion for new trial should be overruled; and it is so ordered.