Cogburn v. Harbour

Decision Date13 July 1983
Docket NumberNo. C-2007,C-2007
Citation657 S.W.2d 432
PartiesAlta Joyce COGBURN, Petitioner, v. Kenneth Jdarrell HARBOUR, Respondent.
CourtTexas Supreme Court

Sudderth, Woodley & Dudley, Keith Woodley, Comanche, for petitioner.

Coan & Terrill, Richard D. Coan, Stephenville, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

This is a dissolution of partnership and accounting case. The trial court rendered judgment for Cogburn on the jury's findings. The jury found that the parties agreed to own jointly the livestock acquired by either of them from 1974 to 1978 and that the net value of the livestock so acquired was $2,400. The court of appeals reversed and remanded because of the failure of the trial court to submit an issue on the existence of a partnership. 646 S.W.2d 330.

Defendant Harbour had objected to the omission of an issue asking whether a partnership existed. The appellate record did not show an express ruling on the objection. Cogburn as appellee and petitioner in this court has maintained that Harbour waived any alleged error by failing to bring forward an express ruling in the record. We agree.

Rule 272 1 provides that the trial judge shall announce his rulings on objections to the charge

"before reading the charge to the jury and shall endorse his rulings on the objections if written or dictate same to the court reporter in the presence of counsel. Objections to the charge and the court's rulings thereon may be included as a part of any transcript or statement of facts on appeal and, when so included in either, shall constitute a sufficient bill of exception to the rulings of the court thereon." (Emphasis supplied.)

The court of appeals held that Harbour was excused from strict compliance with Rule 272 because the record showed the objection was presented before the court read the charge. The court of appeals reasoned that the trial court impliedly overruled the objection to the charge since the charge included no single issue on the existence of a partnership. 2

Implied rulings are not sufficient. Because a majority of the court finds the decision of the court of appeals contrary to Rule 272, we grant petitioner's application for writ of error and, without oral argument, reverse the judgment of the court of appeals and affirm the judgment of the trial court. Rule 483.

1 All citations to rules are to the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.

2 The court of appeals' conclusion that a separate issue on the existence of a partnership...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • State Farm Life Ins. Co. v. Beaston
    • United States
    • Texas Supreme Court
    • October 27, 1995
    ...a broad waiver provision defeating complaints about what the jury found or the form or substance of the jury questions. Cogburn v. Harbour, 657 S.W.2d 432, 432 (Tex.1983); Edwards v. Strong, 213 S.W.2d 979, 981 (Tex.1948); Wilson v. King, 311 S.W.2d 957, 958-59 (Tex.Civ.App.--Austin 1958, w......
  • Missouri-Kansas-Texas R. Co. v. Alvarez
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • March 21, 1984
    ...waived an objection to the form of a special issue by failing to insure that the record reflected a ruling thereon, in Cogburn v. Harbour, 657 S.W.2d 432 (Tex.1983), and Betty Leavell Realty Co. v. Raggio, 669 S.W.2d 102 In Hernandez, the Court held the defendant had waived his objection to......
  • Long v. Tascosa Nat. Bank of Amarillo, 07-82-0382-CV
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • August 29, 1984
    ...the reason now raised on appeal and an adverse ruling thereon, Long has waived the alleged error now presented. Rule 272; Cogburn v. Harbour, 657 S.W.2d 432 (Tex.1983). Furthermore, if the merits of the point were reached, we would hold that the bank's pleadings were sufficient, in the abse......
  • Kollision King, Inc. v. Calderon
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • March 12, 1998
    ...a broad waiver provision defeating complaints about what the jury found or the form or substance of the jury questions. Cogburn v. Harbour, 657 S.W.2d 432, 432 (Tex.1983); Edwards v. Strong, 147 Tex. 155, 213 S.W.2d 979, 981 (1948). In the instant case, because appellants did not propound t......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT