Court Opinion

ID: 9827483
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 17:35:34.833821+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:32.047573
License: Public Domain

*128ON MOTION FOR REHEARING.
Since the affirmance by this court of the judgment of the court below we have permitted appellant to bring up by certiorari the judgment appealed from as corrected by proceedings subsequently had in the court below. The only material change made therein is that, as corrected, it shows that defendant was not present at the trial and not represented by an attorney, except that an attorney was authorized to suggest to the court that' the case be postponed, which he did. The suggestion was ignored and the cause tried, but the attorney declined to act further for defendant, and was without authority to act further.
The only material assignments presented in the brief were to the effect that plaintiff did not prove common source or otherwise prove title in himself. The assignments addressed in one form or another to this point were disposed of in the main opinion, and we have found no reason to change our views. Nor does the change in the judgment of the trial court in any way affect the question.
With the supplemental record appellant has brought up additional assignments of error, the objections to which insofar as the manner of their presentation is concerned have been waived by appellee. The first assignment presenting an additional question is numbered six in the supplemental record. It contains a complaint against the action of the trial court in making any order in the case except one of dismissal, because at the previous term a rule for costs had been entered, which this record does not show had been complied with. Under our statute either the clerk or the defendant may require of plaintiff a bond for costs. If the requirement is not met by the first day of the following term, the court shall dismiss the action. In this ease the record is silent as to whether it was called to the court’s attention, or as to what action was taken thereon. It may have been waived. - It may have been complied with in some way. It affirmatively appears that defendant’s attorney asked for a postponement or continuance, and no mention was made of the failure to comply with the rule for costs. In our opinion' the statute is not mandatory in the sense that the court must enter the order of dismissal of his own motion if cost bond is not given as required. The failure must be called to the court’s attention or it will be considered waived. The assignment is overruled.
The next two assignments are addresed to the action of the trial court in admitting in evidence a certified copy of a deed and power of attorney material to the establishment of plaintiff’s case. The objections here urged to each were the failure to give the statutory notice of filing and notice to produce the original. Pretermitting the question whether a defendant duly served and who has duly answered may refuse to appear and take part in the trial and thereby impose upon the plaintiff the burden of conducting the proceeding absolutely without error, we pass on the question as made. As to notice of filing copies the record discloses that notice was served by the sheriff on C. H. Howard, the party ■named i-n the precept as attorney of record for defendant. This record is otherwise silent as to whether at any time Howard was attorney of record for defendant. He being so named in the precept, the inference *129will be indulged that he was, in the absence of an affirmative showing otherwise.
As to all these matters it seems to us the appellant’s rights rested Upon the question whether the trial court abused his discretion in trying the cause under the circumstances in the absence of appellant’s counsel and this question is not made.
The motion for rehearing is overruled.

Overruled.

Writ of error refused.