Court Opinion

ID: 9833642
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 22:54:57.548066+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:44:05.553812
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
Appellee has filed a motion for rehearing in which he says: “In addition to the evidence introduced before the Trial Court on the trial for divorce, the Trial Court had other circumstances that it could consider in giving weight to the testimony of the plaintiff and which the Trial Court no doubt considered as admissions on the part of the plaintiff of the truth of the allegations contained in the plaintiff’s petition. The record shows that appellant was duly and legally cited by citation to appear and answer the appellee’s petition for divorce. Immediately thereafter appellant employed (lawyers) to represent her in the matter and, even though counsel have been employed, the defendant and her attorneys deliberately stood by and permitted the case to come to trial in due manner without making any appearance or filing any answer until after the Trial Court had rendered judgment in the cause.”
Article 4632, Vernon’s Ann.Civ. Stats., expressly states that in “all such suits (for divorce) the defendant shall not be compelled to answer under oath, nor shall the petition be taken as confessed for want of answer, but the decree of the court shall be rendered upon full and satisfactory evidence * * (Italics ours.)
Appellee also asserts that we have invaded the province of the trial court and passed upon the credibility of the appellee as a witness. Appellee’s testimony is unsatisfactory, not for the reason that it may not be true, but because it is general in nature and consists primarily of fact conclusions. There is nothing definite about it. Such testimony may be considered as a description of family quarrels and disagreements, which under the authorities cited do not call for a dissolution of the marriage. From the evidence, it can not be concluded with any degree of certainty that statutory grounds for divorce exist in fact.
Since the decree below was in favor of the appellee, and this Court has decided that the evidence does not meet the statutory requirement of being “full and satisfactory,” it seems that under the proper practice this Court should dismiss the cause, rather than remand the same for new trial. Accordingly, our order of remand will be set aside. The judgment of the trial court is reversed and judgment here rendered dismissing this cause without prejudice. Moore v. Moore, 22 Tex. 237.
Appellee’s motion for rehearing is overruled.