Court Opinion

ID: 9833664
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 22:55:44.751185+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:44:05.711122
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
It is the custom that requests for findings of fact and conclusions of law should be made on a separate paper, and, finding no such request in the record, this court concluded that none had been made, and did not inspect the motion for new trial to find such request there, where plaintiff in error contends it was made. There are findings of fact, however, in the judgment showing upon what facts the court based its judgment, and *704there is a full statement of facts agreed to by plaintiff: in error, and he could not have been ipjured by a failure to find the facts and give the conclusions of law separate from the judgment. Aukerman v. Bremer (Tex. Civ. App.) 209 S. W. 261; Wardlow v. Andrews (Tex. Civ. App.) 180 S. W. 1161; Schaf v. Kennedy (Tex. Civ. App.) 220, S. W. 223. No other judgment could properly have been rendered than the judgment rendered by the court. Plaintiff in error contends no findings of fact were found by the trial court, and yet states: “This court erred in setting aside the findings of facts of the trial court, the same havixig been requested by plaintiff in error, which findings of- fact were that the instrument sued upon was a deed and not a mortgage, and in finding that said instrument was a mortgage.” It is true that the court called the instrument a deed, and in form it was a deed, but does not pass on the contention of defendants in error that, though in form a deed, it was in truth and in fact intended merely as security for a loan of money. The facts as to the deed having been procured by fraud and being intended as a mortgage by the maker of the instrument are not controverted, and the judgment of the court will not be reversed because the reason assigned for it shows that the court was mistaken as to facts upon which it was based. Mainwarring v. Templeman, 51 Tex. 205.
While we had doubts as'to the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the finding of the trial judge that the property was a homestead, still there is some testimony to that effect, and we do not overrule the finding on that point, but hold that independent of it the judgment should be affirmed.
Motion for rehearing is overruled.