Court Opinion

ID: 9828085
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 18:05:40.748392+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:42.835896
License: Public Domain

Dissenting Opinion.
With the greatest respect for my brethren, I most respectfully' dissent from their conclusions on the propositions of fundamental error. As I understand article 1837, supra,' it deals with two kinds of “error in law,” that is, fundamental error, (a) “error in law assigned * * * upon the face of the record,” and (b) “error in law * * * apparent upon the face of the record.” All of the decisions upon which my brethren base their opinion involved fundamental error not “assigned” but “apparent upon the face of the record.” This distinction is recognized by Judge Brown in his definition in the Kim-ball Case. He says the error in that ease was not assigned, and not being an assigned error, yet one “in law,”-he defines “apparent upon the face of the record.” In all the other cases cited, the conclusion is expressed that the errors complained of are not “assigned.” That being so, the courts, however, with different results, base their conclusions on the proposition of fundamental error upon Judge Brown’s definition.
An “assigned” error fulfills all the conditions required by Judge Brown. In this case the particular errors complained of are pointed out. They go to the very foundation of the case. The facts upon which the errors *869are predicated are called directly to our attention by the assignments, which must be conceded to be a part of the “face -of the record.” If the court erred in his conclusions of law on these facts — that is, (a) in construing the Eaton-Patrick deed; (b) in construing the Eitzhugh-MeFaddin deed; (c) in failing to submit the issue of identity as between the Nashville Colony Eaton and the de Zavala Colony Eaton — the error is one of ■law going .to the very foundation of the case, and necessarily controls the judgment of the court.
The deeds referred to are “easily seen” by a mere reference to the statement of facts. Being valid, unambiguous deeds — that is, capable of expressing the intent of the parties by the language used — the burden rested upon the trial court to construe them, and, as a matter of law, determine their effect. He could not construe them in the light of the attending facts and circumstances, nor was he aided in his construction by any oral testimony in the record. That being his duty, and the error, if any, in his construction being pointed out to us, it becomes our duty, as I understand, article 1837, supra, to review the trial court’s conclusions.
But if my brethren are right in their conclusions that an “assigned” error, not brought forward in a proper brief, loses its place in the record and occupies no higher place than one unassigned, still I think they are in error in their conclusions. I do not agree with Judge Ely in his proposition in the Ains-worth Case, supra, and think my brethren have erred in following him, that “we cannot, in examining the record for fundamental error, go into the statement of facts.” Clearly this proposition is not in accord with Judge Speer’s announcement in the Waggoner Case, supra, wherein he says:
¿ “If a' Court of Civil Appeals is not required to search the record in support of such a pretended error, it is because the same is not fundamental.”
But Judge Powell, in his Eagan Case, draws a clear distinction, as shown by the quotation made, supra, between his Flewellen ease, where the Court of Civil Appeals' examined the “entire” statement of facts, and the Eagan Case, where no such statement was made, holding that the distinction relieved the Eagan Case of the assignment of being in conflict with the Elewellen Case.
It follows from this distinction that it is hot error for a Court of Civil Appeals to go to the statement of facts, provided it is not necessary “to read the entire statement of facts.” While this distinction seems to be technical in the most narrow meaning that could be assigned to that term, it is recognized by our Supreme Court and thereby made the basis of property rights.
In drawing that distinction, Judge Powell had the authority of the Supreme Court for what he said. It was held by the Commission of Appeals in Harlington, etc., v. Houston Motor Car Co., 209 S. W. 145, that fundamental error was “apparent upon the face of the record,” provided the facts given in the brief were sufficient to call the error to the court’s attention, and the authorities cited for that proposition fully sustain the conclusion. This court followed that case in Settlement & Development Co. v. Village Mills Co., 230 S. W. 869, and Wilson v. Armstrong, 236 S. W. 756. Also I think that Judge Brown, in his Kimball Case and the authorities cited by him, clearly recognizes that the briefs are sufficient to require a Court of Civil Appeals to review an assignment of fundamental error.
Again, from the decisions cited by Judge Brown, even by his statement in the Kimball Case, it is clear that the Supreme' Court does go, at least to a limited extent, to the statement of facts, to the extent .that justified Judge Powell in his conclusion that a Court of Civil Appeals is not in error in examining the record for fundamental error, provided it does not read the “entire” statement of facts.
Having sent' the Court of Civil Appeals to the briefs of the parties, the Supreme Court must recognize that we rest under the duty of following these briefs into the statement of facts to reconcile conflicting statements of the facts which occur most frequently.
Eor- these reasons, I conclude that my brethren aré in error in refusing to go to the statement of facts at all, on an assignment of fundamental error, even if it is of the class not assigned but only “apparent upon the face of the record.” In this case the refusal must be absolute; for even the most casual examination of the statement of facts would reveal the facts upon which the assigned errors are based.
But I would follow the logic of Houston Motor Car Company and the Eagan Case, supra, both of which send us to the briefs of the parties. It cannot be contended that the briefs are a part of the “record” as that term is used in the statute. The cited authorities must rest upon the proposition that, when briefs are duly filed, it is our duty to read them. Having read them, we know judicially the facts in the case. Knowing these facts judicially, it is our duty to review all fundamental errors disclosed thereby. An oral argument is of equal dignity, to the extent of its office, with the written brief. The facts disclosed on oral argument are before us as fully and as judicially as when given in a brief. We would labor under no greater burden to reconcile conflicting oral statements than conflicting written statements. On the oral argument in this case, the facts were *870‘without conflict. An oral argument, no more than a written brief, would force us to review errors that are not fundamental; that is, errors “in law.”
I do not agree with counsel for appellees in their proposition made on oral argument that we cannot identify the land in controversy as not being a part of the tract north of Taylor’s bayou without going to the statement of facts. The land in controversy is tied to the “Big Hill” tract. “Big Hill” and Taylor’s bayou are two of the most prominent nathral objects in Jefferson county, of which we must, take judicial notice, and of their relation to each other. In Railway Co. v. State, 72 Tex. 404, 10 S. W. 81, 1 L. R. A. 849, 13 Am. St. Rep. 815, it was held:
“A court is bound to take judicial knowledge of the leading geographical features of the land; the minuteness of the knowledge so expected being in inverse proportion to the distance.”
Many authorities are cited and reviewed in 7 Ency. of Evidence, 910-914.