Court Opinion

ID: 9832754
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 22:09:41.040391+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:12:34.021705
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing.
The motion of appellant for rehearing will be granted, and the judgment of affirmance heretofore announced will be set aside. Appellants’ motion for certiorari to perfect the record will also be grantéd, and the certified copy of the bill of exception attached to said motion will be filed and considered as a part of the record.
At a former day of the term the court overruled all assignments and affirmed the judgment of the trial court. Among other assignments urged by appellant was one complaining of the omission of the trial court to file findings of fact and conclusions of law. This assignment was overruled for the reason that the record did not show that the failure of the court in this respect was made the subject of a bill of exception. It appears, however, that appellant did in fact take a bill of exception to the omission of the court to comply with his request for findings, and the same is now before us for consideration.
This bill was not filed within the time fixed by statute for filing bills of exception generally, but the statute, in question is not applicable to bills taken to the action of the court occurring after adjournment. This was the construction given the statute by the Galveston Court of Civil Appeals in Jefferson v. Williams, 286 S. W. 614 (616), where Judge Pleasants for the court used this language:
“We are further of opinion that the statute fixing the time within which bills of exception must be filed should be held to apply only to exceptions taken to rulings of the court during the progress of the trial of the case, and not to the failure of the trial judge, after the adjournment of the court, to comply with an administrative duty connected with the appeal of the ease.”
The bill, therefore, although filed after the expiration of .the time fixed by the statute for filing bills of exception generally, will be considered as filed in time.
Among other controverted issues in the case was whether or not appellees were negligent in failing to answer and defend the suit before judgment by default was taken. The evidence was conflicting on this issue, and was sufficient to support a finding either way. Appellants’ right to the finding of the trial judge on this material issue is statutory. Revised Statutes, 'art. 2208.
In Galveston, etc., v. Stewart & Threadgill, 257 S. W. 526 (580), the Commission of Appeals, through Judge Hamilton, said:
“In every case, where there is any conflict in the evidence on an issue material to the decision of the case, the failure of the trial judge to file hip findings of fact and conclusions of *617law is ‘such a denial of the rights of the appellant * * *. as probably prevented the appellant from making a proper presentation of the ease to the appellate court.’ The trial judge hears and sees the witnesses. He is the judge of their credibility and of the weight to be given their testimony. The duty devolves upon him to select from contradictory evidence that which he credits and from such selection to make his findings of fact. The appellate courts have no such authority.”
The doctrine announced by Judge Hamilton was commented on with approval by the Austin Court of Civil Appeals in Childress v. Wolf, 273 S. W. 274. We are of the opinion therefore that the court committed reversible error in omitting to file findings of fact and conclusions of law as requested by appellant, and the cause will accordingly be reversed and remanded for further proceedings. The original opinion, on the other issues, will remain as announced.
Reversed and remanded.