Arcola Sugar Mills Co. v. Houston Lighting & P. Co.
| Decision Date | 19 December 1940 |
| Docket Number | No. 11203.,11203. |
| Citation | 146 S.W.2d 199 |
| Parties | ARCOLA SUGAR MILLS CO. et al. v. HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER CO. et al. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Baker, Botts, Andrews & Wharton and Tom M. Davis, all of Houston, for respondents.
This is an original proceeding brought by Arcola Sugar Mills Company and Lillian and Stella Scanlan, individually and as trustees, as relators, against C. L. Dutton, Judge of the County Court of Fort Bend County, Texas, and Houston Lighting & Power Company, as respondents, in which relators pray that a writ of mandamus issue requiring the respondent, C. L. Dutton, as County Judge of Fort Bend County, to prepare and file a statement of facts among the papers of a certain condemnation suit now pending on appeal in this court, entitled Houston Lighting & Power Company v. Arcola Sugar Mills Company et al.
Relators alleged in their petition for mandamus that a judgment had been rendered in their favor in above numbered and entitled cause, and that they had requested the reporters, who had apparently acted as court reporters in the trial of said cause, to prepare and file therein a transcript of the evidence given on the trial, but that said reporters declined to do so, on the ground that they had not been appointed the official reporters in the trial of said cause but that they were the private employees therein of the Houston Lighting & Power Company; that this court has refused to grant them a writ of mandamus requiring said reporters to file a transcript of the evidence in said cause; that by agreement of the parties the time for the preparing and filing of said statement of facts was, by two orders entered in said cause, extended to October 29 1940, and that, within the time so extended, the relators have prepared a statement of facts and had submitted it to the attorneys for the Houston Lighting & Power Company, who refused to agree to said statement of facts; that relators had requested the respondent, C. L. Dutton, as Judge of the County Court of Fort Bend County, Texas, to prepare and file a full and complete statement of facts in said condemnation suit and that he had declined to do so.
Respondent, C. L. Dutton, in his answer to relators' petition for mandamus denied that he had declined to approve a full and complete statement of facts in said cause. He stated that, although judgment was rendered in said cause on June 15, 1940, relators did not request him to prepare and file a statement of facts therein until late in the afternoon of October 29, 1940, the last day for the filing thereof in the trial court; that relators had prepared and submitted to him at that time an abbreviated and incomplete statement of facts to which attorneys for respondent had refused to agree for the claimed reason that it was not full and complete and that it would have been a physical impossibility for him to have complied with appellants' request to prepare and file said statement of fact at that time. Respondent denied that relators are without remedy unless the mandamus prayed for is issued and states that if this Court will extend the time for the preparation of said statement of facts relators can have the testimony in said cause transcribed and that he can and will prepare therefrom and file a full and complete statement of facts in the event the attorneys for respondent, Houston Lighting & Power Company refuse to agree thereto.
Respondent, Houston Lighting & Power Company, attached to its answer filed herein, as exhibits thereto affidavits of A. T. Fridge and A. J. Rosenthal, the reporters who reported said cause in the trial court, in which they stated under oath that they had been willing and ready at all times since judgment was renderd in said cause to prepare for relators...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Arcola Sugar Mills Co. v. Houston Lighting & P. Co.
...distributing line across a tract of land. From an unsatisfactory judgment of the county court, all parties appeal. Affirmed. See, also, 146 S.W.2d 199. Walter F. Brown and C. I. McFarlane, both of Houston, for Tom M. Davis, of Houston (Baker, Botts, Andrews & Wharton, of Houston, of counsel......
-
King v. Moorhead
...the officer has clearly violated his duty in not performing the act sought to be required of him. Arcola Sugar Mills et al. v. Houston Lighting & Power Co. et al., Tex.Civ.App., 146 S.W.2d 199 (citing authorities). Whether petitioners may in a condemnation proceeding control the location an......