Court Opinion

ID: 9829010
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 18:55:30.486699+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:56.413229
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
Appellant has filed a very able motion for rehearing, citing many cases hot cited in his original brief, and strenuously insists that this court erred in its original opinion ip holding that the findings of, fact, although filed in time for appellant to have full benefit of same, and the same could have been used by appellant was therefore not reversible error.
After reading the motion for rehearing and examining the authorities therein cited, we have concluded that we were in error in so holding, and that the findings of fact and conclusions of law filed in the case after the' expiration of ten days provided by statute were too late to be considered by this court, although, the file marks showing that they were filed in time, the clerk, acting under the' instructions of the court, dated back said conclusions.
In our original opinion we were under the impression that the error was invited by appellant in his writing to the court to the effect that he (appellant) would prepare the findings of fact and conclusions of law for the court and forward same to him. However, we have again read the record, and, although the court qualified the bill of exceptions, he nowhere indicated that he relied upon the statement made by the attorney for a-ppellant that he would prepare the findings of fact and forward same to the court. We therefore conclude that under the following authorities: Wandry v. Williams, 103 Tex. 91, 124 S. W. 85; Peers v. Williams (Tex. Civ. App.) 174 S. W. 864; Wood et ux. v. Smith et al. (Tex. Civ. App.) 141 S. W. 795; Emery et al. v. Barfield et al. (Tex. Civ. App.) 156 S. W. 311, 312; Galveston, H. & S. A. Ry. Co. v. Stewart & Threadgill (Tex. Com. App.) 257 S. W. 526—the motion for rehearing should be granted, and the cause reversed and remanded.