Court Opinion

ID: 9773327
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 17:42:14.482539+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:31:52.121524
License: Public Domain

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
Appellee now responds to appellant’s statement in his reply brief, which this court granted permission to file, that no evidence was submitted to or admitted by the trial court on considering appellee s motion for continuance other than the motion itself, by saying:
“ . . . the Trial Judge did in fact have before him the full Court’s Jacket concerning all of the pleadings and documents, request for admissions, Motions, Orders and Agreements theretofore filed in the case and further that Appellee’s counsel delivered to the Trial Judge the Citation with Petition attached issued out of the Circuit Court of Champaign County, Illinois, in the divorce cause commenced by the Appellant against the Ap-pellee in such State. He also received information from counsel concerning the status of the Illinois case, the status of the Appellee, and arguments of counsel for both parties. . . ”
This statement does not directly challenge the statement made by appellant in his reply brief and affirmatively shows no evidence was presented at the hearing. We accept the statement of appellant as correct. Rule 419, T.R.C.P.; Biscamp v. Zeno Carpet Company, 473 S.W.2d 218 (Tex.Civ.App.—Beaumont 1971, no writ).
Appellee also argues Rule 419, T.R. C.P., is applicable only to statements made by appellant in his “original” brief. The language contained in the rule refers to statements made by an appellant in his “original” brief. We hold, however, that Rule 419, permits the court to accept as correct an unchallenged statement as to the facts or record made by an appellant in a subsequent brief. This interpretation is consistent with the purpose and intent of Rule 419.
We find nothing to cause us to change the judgment heretofore entered. The motion for rehearing is overruled.