Gomperts v. Wendeborn
| Citation | 427 S.W.2d 904 |
| Decision Date | 24 April 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 11600,11600 |
| Parties | Michael L. GOMPERTS, Appellant, v. Jimmie Oliver WENDEBORN, Appellee. . Austin |
| Court | Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Civil Appeals of Texas |
Kemp & Prud'homme, Gilbert Prud'homme, Owen Wade Anderson, Austin, for appellant.
Dale Ossip Johnson, Austin, for appellee.
This case involves the correctness of the trial court's ruling in granting appellee herein a judgment nihil dicit.
Appellant failed to appear at the time and place appointed for trial on the merits after ample notice of the setting. Judgment was rendered for appellee. Appellant then filed a motion for new trial which was overruled. Hence his appeal to this Court.
We affirm.
Appellant is before this Court on six points of error, the first of which has been waived. Points two, three, four and five, briefed together, are as follows: the error of the trial court in finding that appellant had entrusted his automobile to the driver of the car since there is no evidence supporting this finding of fact or that there was insufficient evidence for such finding; the error of the court in concluding as a matter of law that the appellant had entrusted his automobile to the abovementioned driver and that such entrustment was a direct and proximate cause of the injuries and damages of appellee since there was no evidence supporting this conclusion of law or that there was insufficient evidence to support this conclusion.
We overrule these points.
This case arose as a damage suit for negligent collision brought by appellee against appellant and the driver of appellant's car at the time of the accident. The trial court rendered a joint and several judgment against both defendants for $493 actual damages.
The trial court filed findings of fact and conclusions of law and it is the lack of evidence or the insufficiency of the evidence to support these findings that is assigned as error here.
The law in this regard is stated in 33 Tex.Jur.2d, Judgments, sec. 130, as follows: 'A judgment nihil dicit amounts to something more than a statutory default judgment; it is said to partake of the nature of a judgment by confession as well as a judgment by default, and to possess a stronger implication in favor of the plaintiff's claim than an ordinary default judgment.'
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Frymire Engineering Co., Inc. v. Grantham, 17562
...Spivey v. Saner-Ragley Lumber Co., supra; Pickett v. Roberts, 467 S.W.2d 244 (Eastland, Tex.Civ.App., 1971, ref., n.r.e.); Gamperts v. Wendeborn,427 S.W.2d 904 (Austin, Tex.Civ.App., 1968, no writ hist.); and O'Quinn v. Tate, 187 S.W.2d 241 (Texas Civ.App., 1945, writ For the reasons stated......
-
In re R.K.P.
...1945, no writ). It is stronger than a no-answer default in that a judgment nihil dicit acts as a confession of judgment. Gomperts v. Wendeborn, 427 S.W.2d 904, 905 (Tex.Civ.App.-Austin 1968, no writ). These two types of judgments contrast with a post-answer default judgment, in which an ans......
-
Stoner v. Thompson
...here, would describe it as a judgment Nihil dicit. Evans v. McNeill, 41 S.W.2d 268 (Tex.Civ.App.1931, writ dism'd); Gomperts v. Wendeborn, 427 S.W.2d 904 (Tex.Civ.App.1968, no writ). Others would term it a judgment upon trial. Webb v. Reynolds, 207 S.W. 914 (Tex.Comm'n App.1919, judgmt. ado......
-
In re Brilliant
...1945, no writ). It is stronger than a no-answer default in that a judgment nihil dicit acts as a confession of judgment. Gomperts v. Wendeborn, 427 S.W.2d 904, 905 (Tex.Civ.App.-Austin 1968, no writ). These two types of judgments contrast with a post-answer default judgment, in which an ans......