Griffith v. Reagan

• Decision Date: 09 December 1908
• Citation: 114 S.W. 1167
• Parties: GRIFFITH v. REAGAN.
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

114 S.W. 1167

GRIFFITH v. REAGAN.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas.

December 9, 1908.

Rehearing Denied January 13, 1909.

Error from Bexar County Court; P. H. Shook, Judge.

Action by John Griffith against Edgar Reagan. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff brings error. Affirmed.

Cocke & Cocke, for plaintiff in error. Ogden, Brooks & Napier, for defendant in error.

FLY, J.

This is a suit instituted by plaintiff in error, who will be designated herein as plaintiff, to recover of defendant in error the sum of $852.90 alleged to be due by virtue of a written contract. The cause was tried by jury and resulted in a verdict and judgment in favor of defendant.

The first assignment of error assails the action of the court in refusing to give a special charge asked by him instructing a verdict for the plaintiff. The proposition under the assignment is: "When, upon the whole case, there can be but one legal verdict rendered by the jury, it is not only the province, but the duty, of the trial court to direct the verdict." That might be a sound proposition upon which this court could act, if there were any means extended by the record by which the "whole case" could be ascertained; but there is no statement of facts in the record, and it is impossible for this court to hold that a verdict should have been directed. It is the duty of an appellate court to presume in favor of the correctness of a judgment, and, in the absence of a statement of facts, the appellate court will presume that the evidence was sufficient to support the verdict and judgment. Wallace v. Bogel, 62 Tex. 636; Heidenheimer v. Ellis, 67 Tex. 426, 3 S. W. 666; Tobler v. Willis 59 Tex. 80; Gentry v. Schneider, 77 Tex. 2, 13 S. W. 614; Cotulla v. Goggan, 77 Tex. 32, 13 S. W. 742.

What has been said concerning the first assignment disposes of the second and fifth assignments also. While it is the duty of a court to construe a written contract, we do not know that the written contract in this case was not construed. This court cannot consider a contract, not made a part of any pleading, copied into the record independent of any statement of facts. Armstrong v. Lipscomb, 11 Tex. 649; Birge v. Wanhope, 23 Tex. 441. The rule laid down by the Supreme Court is: "That it will not reverse the judgment for mere inaccurate or erroneous rulings of the court below in its instructions to the jury, unless, indeed, when the error in the charge is so glaringly apparent, when taken in connection with the...