Court Opinion

ID: 9828336
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 18:18:29.084247+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:47.339692
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing and Application for Permission to File Statement of Facts.
On tbe original bearing of this cause, we affirmed tbe judgment of the’eourt below and refused to consider tbe assignments of error, because there was no statement of facts in tbe record.
Appellant has filed a motion for rehearing, and has asked leave to file tbe original statement of facts, upon tbe ground that tbe failure to file same was not due to tbe fault or laches of the appellant or bis attorneys of record, but was tbe result of causes beyond their control.
We have, carefully examined tbe motions and tbe affidavits attached in support thereof, and find that no' sufficient excuse has been presented for tbe failure to file a statement of facts. It is clear that this was due solely to tbe oversight or neglect of counsel for appellant, or their stenographer. It appears from tbe affidavits that when appellant’s counsel bad prepared'their brief, they instructed their stenographer to forward tbe record to tbe clerk of tbe Court of Civil Appeals, and that counsel believed tbe statement of facts had been filed, until informed by tbe written opinion of this court that sucb was not tbe case. Tbe transcript and printed briefs for appellant were filed in this court on tbe 29th day of August, 1921; so that over a year bad elapsed before tbe submission of tbe cause without any statement of facts having been filed, and without any effort to do so. It appears from tbe counter- áfedavits filed here that tbe fault was wholly that of appellant’s counsel, or their employe, and that counsel for appellee were in no wise to blame.
Tbe statement of facts is by tbe statutes and rules of court made -a part of tbe record and should be filed witb tbe tran*1115script. However, we have no doubt of our discretion to allow the statement of facts to be filed at a date later than that fixed by statute, for good cause shown. In the circumstances of this case, we are of the opinion that appellant should not be heard to insist that the statement of facts be now filed, after the long delay involved and after submission and a decision by this court, since the excuse offered is wholly one of oversight or neglect. The motion comes too late. Without intending to be too critical, we thinls it would be difficult to imagine a clearer case of neglect.
This court will not give literal enforcement to the rules, unless so compelled, where the effect would be to hinder or defeat justice. Our discretion, however, should be exercised to promote the due and orderly administration of justice. We cannot sanction the failure to observe the statutes and rules manifest in this case. It is no answer to say that appellant should not be penalized for the omissions of his counsel. He was represented by attorneys of recognized ability, and their acts and omissions must be deemed to be his, and we must decline to reopen the case under the excuse shown. Royal Ins. Co. v. Ry. Co., 53 Tex. Civ. App. 154, 115 S. W. 117, 123; Shaw v. Schuch, 58 Tex. Civ. App. 255, 124 S. W. 688.
Both motions are overruled.
Motions overruled.