Campbell v. Hart
Decision Date | 13 February 1953 |
Docket Number | No. 15406,15406 |
Parties | CAMPBELL v. HART. |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Charles L. Morgan and John T. Gano, both of Fort Worth, for appellant.
Dell Barber and Perry Barber, of Colorado City, and Clyde & Barnes, of Fort Worth, for appellee.
This is a suit for damages instituted by appellee T. C. Hart, as plaintiff, against appellant Francis K. Campbell, as defendant, growing out of an alleged breach of contract to purchase a mineral interest in a tract of land in Mitchell County, the amount sued for representing the difference between the contract price and the market value of the interest at the time of the alleged breach. Upon a verdict of the jury, judgment was rendered for the plaintiff for $18,000, and the defendant appeals.
Appellee has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal, in which it is alleged that this court has no jurisdiction of the attempted appeal because, he alleges, the judgment was rendered in the trial court on the 29th day of May, 1952, and appellant's original motion for new trial was not filed within ten days after that date, as required by Rule 330(k), Texas Rules of Civil Procedure; that since the motion for new trial was a nullity, the time for perfecting the various steps of the appeal began to run from the date of the judgment, and not from the date appellant's motion for new trial was overruled; that the statement of facts was not filed in the trial court within fifty days from the date of the judgment and not filed in this court within sixty days from the date of the judgment, and that notice of appeal was not given within ten days from the date of the judgment, and the appeal bond was not filed within thirty days from the date of the judgment. Appellant has filed a motion for leave to file a supplemental transcript, which brings up the judgment 'as corrected' by the trial court. The changes made consisted of the following: The last paragraph of the original entry began, 'It is therefore ordered, adjudged and decreed by the Court, on this the 29th day of May, 1952,' and ends, 'Entered June 16, 1952,' and as corrected, these recitals are, 'It is therefore ordered, adjudged and decreed by the Court, on this the 16th day of June, 1952,' and
Appellant's original motion for new trial was filed on June 25, 1952; his amended motion for new trial was filed on July 14; motion for new trial was overruled and notice of appeal was given on August 8; the appeal bond was filed on September 6; the statement of facts was filed in the trial court on September 24; and in this court on October 6. So it will be seen that if the judgment was rendered on June 16, the various steps for perfecting the appeal were taken in time.
The record does not show whether the judgment was corrected during or after the term.
Appellee contends that the trial court was powerless to correct the judgment because the judgment became final thirty days after May 29, and that under Rule 330(l), T.R.C.P., the matter could be reached only by bill of review.
We think the authorities fully sustain the action of the court in making the corrections in the judgment during or after the term, and before or after appeal was perfected to this court. 25 Tex.Jur., pp. 524, 528; Bray et ux. v. Clark, Tex.Civ.App., 9 S.W.2d 203, error dismissed; Coleman v. Zapp, 105 Tex. 491, 151 S.W. 1040; Panhandle Construction Co. v. Lindsey, 123 Tex. 613, 72 S.W.2d 1068; O'Daniel v. Libal, Tex.Civ.App., 196 S.W.2d 211; Glasscock v. Bryant, Tex.Civ.App., 185 S.W.2d 595, refused w. m.; Townes v. Lattimore, 114 Tex. 511, 272 S.W. 435; Hooker v. Williamson, 60 Tex. 524.
49 C.J.S., Judgments, § 229, page 436. See Texas cases cited in note 7 under said section.
In O'Daniel v. Libal, supra (196 S.W.2d 215), it is said: * * *'
In Coleman v. Zapp, supra (105 Tex. 491, 151 S.W. 1041), Chief Justice Phillips of our Supreme Court uses the following language:
Rule 330(l) has no application to proceedings to make the judgment entry speak the truth. It merely provides that the judgment becomes as final after thirty days as if the term of court had expired, and that it cannot be set aside after that time except by bill of review. A proceeding to correct the record of a judgment is not a proceeding to set it aside. Rule 330(l) is in the exact language of art. 2092(30), (30), which was under consideration when Chief Justice Cureton, speaking for the Supreme Court in Nevitt v. Wilson, 116 Tex. 29, 285 S.W. 1079, 1082, 48 A.L.R. 355, said: Rule 316, T.R.C.P., provides, 'Mistakes in the record of any judgment or decree may be amended by the judge in open court according to the truth or justice of the case after notice of the application therefor has been given to the parties interested in such judgment or decree, and thereafter the execution shall conform to the judgment as amended.'
Appellee does not complain that the action of the trial court was had without proper motion, notice and hearing. In any event, in the absence of the record we must presume the regularity of the actions of that court. Hannon v. Henson, Tex.Com.App., 15 S.W.2d 579; 31 C.J.S., Evidence, § 145, page 792.
Appellant's motion for leave to file the supplemental transcript is hereby granted and appellee's motion to dismiss the appeal is overruled.
Appellant and appellee entered into a written contract on July 4, 1949, as follows:
'Mr. T. C. Hart
'Westbrook, Texas
'Dear Mr. Hart:
'This will confirm our agreement, wherein I agree to buy and you agree to sell and deliver to me, One-Fourth of the minerals under your 160 acres of land in Mitchell County, texas, described as the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Alexander v. Alexander
...Rodriguez, Tex.Civ.App., 212 S.W.2d 838, writ ref. n. r. e.; Jeffersonian Club v. Waught, Tex.Civ.App., 217 S.W.2d 103; Campbell v. Hart, Tex.Civ.App., 256 S.W.2d 255, writ ref. n. r. Appellant's second point is to the effect that the court erred in finding the realty involved in the suit t......
-
Super Ventures, Inc. v. Chaudhry
...P.C. v. French, 140 S.W.3d 407, 411 (Tex.App.–Fort Worth 2004, no pet.) (op. on reh'g) (citing Campbell v. Hart, 256 S.W.2d 255, 260–61 (Tex.Civ.App.–Fort Worth 1953, writ ref'd n.r.e.) ).A. Super Ventures's Breach The trial court's findings regarding the terms of the lease amendment are co......
-
Loma Linda University v. District-Realty Title Ins. Corp., 23353.
...does not justify them in inferring his dishonesty. * * *"); Hollingsworth v. Colthurst, 78 Kan. 455, 96 P. 851 (1908); Campbell v. Hart, 256 S.W. 2d 255 (Tex.Civ.App.1953). 9 1A A. Corbin, Contracts § 259, at 460, § 265, at 533-536 10 See generally id. § 265. 11 3 Williston, Contracts § 675......
-
Sanchez v. Mecom
...and Union National Bank of Laredo in writing, stating his reasons for dissatisfaction. Such contracts have been approved. Campbell v. Hart, Tex.Civ.App., 256 S.W.2d 255. Mecom had good faith and valid objections, but he waived them and fully performed his contract. The contract was enforcea......