Brazelton Lumber Co. v. Roberts
Decision Date | 17 March 1923 |
Docket Number | (No. 10135.) |
Citation | 253 S.W. 698 |
Parties | BRAZELTON LUMBER CO. v. ROBERTS et al. |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Haskell County; W. R. Chapman, Judge.
Action by the Brazelton Lumber Company against H. C. Roberts and another. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
Smith & Grissom, of Haskell, for appellant.
Murchison & Davis and Theodore Mack, all of Haskell, for appellees.
Appellants filed in this court the transcript and statement of facts on March 8, 1922. In the transcript are no bills of exception. On February 3, 1923, appellant filed in this court certain papers and documents which it claims are the bills of exception preserved in the trial court. These documents are signed by "W. R. Chapman, Judge of Thirty-Ninth Judicial District presiding." They are not certified by the clerk of the court under seal, as required by law, nor are they agreed to by the attorneys for the appellees, nor does it appear that they were ever presented to such attorneys.
Article 2109, V. S. Tex. Civ. Statutes, provides:
"The transcript shall, except in the cases hereinafter provided, contain a full and correct copy of all the proceedings had in the cause."
Article 2113 is as follows:
"The transcript shall, in all cases, contain a copy of the final judgment, notice of appeal, petition for writ of error and citation in error, with return of service thereon, bond on appeal or writ of error, or affidavit in lieu thereof, and assignments of errors or such of them as there may be, and also a copy from the fee book of all the costs that have accrued in the cause."
Article 2114 provides:
Article 2063 provides:
"It shall be the duty of the party taking any bill of exception to reduce the same to writing, and present the same to the judge for his allowance and signature."
Article 2064 provides:
"It shall be the duty of the judge to submit such bill of exceptions to the adverse party or his counsel, if in attendance on the court, and if the same is found to be correct, it shall be signed by the judge without delay and filed with the clerk."
This court is not authorized to consider any alleged error in the court below, except fundamental error, or where a ruling complained of is otherwise shown in the transcript, unless a bill of exception showing such error be filed in the trial court, authenticated by the trial judge, and incorporated in the transcript. M., K. & T. Ry. Co. v. Churchill (Tex. Com. App.) 212 S. W. 155, and (Tex. Com. App.) 213 S. W. 253, by the Commission of Appeals, and adopted by the Supreme Court; Pierce Fordyce Oil Ass'n v. Woods (Tex. Civ. App.) 180 S. W. 1181, writ denied. None of the assignments contained in appellants' brief, in our judgment, present fundamental error. Assignments 2, 3, 4, and 5 urge error in the admission or exclusion of certain testimony. We cannot consider these assignments, in the absence of proper bills of exceptions in the transcript. Spurlock v. Sullivan, 36 Tex. 511; Phillips v. Texas Loan Co., 26 Tex. Civ. App. 505, 63 S. W. 1080, writ denied. Other assignments are predicated on alleged improper argument by opposing counsel. The nature of the remarks are not shown in the assignment, but a mere reference to the bills of exceptions is made. Under such circumstances, we cannot consider the assignments. Jones v. Smith, 21 Tex. Civ. App. 440, 52 S. W. 561, writ denied.
Other assignments are directed to the submission of the following issues of fact:
Answer: "No."
No answer.
Answer: "Yes."
The grounds for the objections to the submission of these issues are set out in the transcript. Appellant claims that the uncontradicted evidence shows that the appellant sold the lumber for which recovery is sought to the appellee Scott, and not to his agent and tenant, H. C. Roberts. L. R. Gamble, manager of the appellant company at the time the lumber was sold, testified:
In appellants' brief they quote certain excluded testimony further supporting the contention that the plaintiff below sold the material to Scott, and not to Roberts, but we cannot consider said excluded testimony, in the absence of bills of exception relating thereto.
On the other hand, it was shown that the lumber was charged on the books of plaintiff to H. C. Roberts, and that a materialman's lien sworn by F. M. Squires, manager for plaintiff company, on August 4, 1921, was filed August 5th thereafter, and that in said instrument it was asserted that the lumber had been sold to H. C. Roberts. Subsequently, on August 13th, another materialman's lien was filed, showing that the lumber was sold on account of H. C. Roberts and S. W. Scott. S. W. Scott testified that he made an arrangement with H. C. Roberts to replace the ranchhouse, which had been burned, and that by the terms of said arrangement it was agreed that Roberts was to pay for the lumber; that the latter tried to get him to pay for the carpenters, and that he finally agreed to do so; that he agreed with Roberts to credit him on his rental account for the amount of the lumber furnished him; that Roberts owed him a considerable amount of money. He denied that he had ever told Gamble to let any of his men have any material they wanted and charge it to him; that he never authorized the appellant company to sell lumber on his credit, unless he had figured the bill; that he never authorized H. C. Roberts to go to the Brazelton Lumber Company and buy lumber for him to build the house; that he never authorized any one to do it. There was introduced in evidence the following letter:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Jones v. Williams
...unsupported by a proper bill of exception, the assignment is disregarded. Article 2237, Revised Civil Statutes; Brazelton Lbr. Co. v. Roberts (Tex. Civ. App.) 253 S. W. 698; Rabb v. Goodrich & Son, 46 Tex. Civ. App. 541, 102 S. W. 910; Davis v. Bowen (Tex. Civ. App.) 256 S. W. Assignment No......
-
First Nat. Bank of Jefferson v. Joseph T. Ryerson & Son, Inc., s. 8104
...Ft. Worth 1926, no writ); Marlin Lbr. Co. v. Samuel Hastings Co., 198 S.W. 1076 (Tex.Civ.App. Austin 1917, no writ); Brazelton Lumber Co. v. Roberts, 253 S.W. 698 (Tex.Civ.App. Ft. Worth 1923, no writ). Also see 50 T.J.2d Sales, Secs. 92, 93, 94 and 51 T.J.2d Sales, Sec. 400, and cases cite......
-
Waxahachie Nat. Bank v. Hanes
...assignment therefore cannot be considered. Houston & T. C. Ry. Co. v. Kinser (Tex. Civ. App.) 91 S. W. 243; Brazelton Lumber Co. v. Roberts (Tex. Civ. App.) 253 S. W. 698, 699, par. 1, and authorities there cited; Closner & Sprague v. Acker (Tex. Civ. App.) 200 S. W. 421, 426, par. 6; 3 Tex......