Heidingsfelder v. Rodgers, 10286.

• Decision Date: 09 July 1936
• Docket Number: No. 10286.,10286.
• Citation: 96 S.W.2d 147
• Parties: HEIDINGSFELDER et al. v. RODGERS.
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

96 S.W.2d 147

HEIDINGSFELDER et al. v. RODGERS.

No. 10286.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Galveston.

July 9, 1936.

Rehearing Denied July 23, 1936.

Appeal from District Court, Harris County; Ray F. Campbell, Judge.

Suit by James M. Rodgers against C. E. Heidingsfelder, Sr., and another. From a judgment entered on a directed verdict for plaintiff, defendants appeal.

Affirmed.

A. E. Heidingsfelder and Charles E. Heidingsfelder, Jr., both of Houston, for appellants.

T. W. Grobe, of Houston, for appellee.

GRAVES, Justice.

This suit was instituted on August 11 of 1933 by James M. Rodgers, appellee herein, in the district court of Harris county, against C. E. Heidingsfelder, Sr., and Charles E. Heidingsfelder, Jr., appellants herein, to recover on a judgment in his favor against them, rendered on May 4 of 1933 in the superior court of Los Angeles county, Cal., which was alleged to have been a court of general jurisdiction of that state, with jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter of the cause.

The plaintiff's petition described the judgment by giving the names of the parties the court in which it was rendered, the date of the judgment, the amount thereof, and. upon trial of the case, in evidence of it, he introduced a copy of the judgment roll of the superior court of Los Angeles county, certified to in accordance with the acts of Congress (U. S. Revised Statutes, § 905 [28 U.S.C.A. § 687]), the original of which has been brought up as a part of the record here.

The defendants pleaded at length, by way of general demurrer, denial, and special answer, but offered no proof whatever.

When the plaintiff rested, the defendents likewise rested, and the court thereupon instructed the jury to find for the plaintiff a like recovery with that carried in the judgment sued upon, which direction having been complied with, judgment was entered accordingly; hence this appeal.

As indicated supra, the appellants confined their offerings to their stated pleadings and objections, or "exceptions," to the certified judgment roll of the California court that was offered by the appellee in support of his cause of action; this signed agreement as to what constituted the record upon the appeal having been entered into between the parties:

"It is hereby agreed that the foregoing six (6) pages of typewritten matter contain a true and correct statement of all the exceptions made and taken upon the trial of the numbered and entitled cause stated in the caption thereof, and that the said six pages, together with the Original Judgment-Roll of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Los Angeles, California, and the certificate attached thereto, executed in accordance with the Federal Statute, constitutes a true and correct statement of facts adduced upon the trial of this cause.

"It is expressly agreed that the filing of a copy of the above Statement of Facts in the lower court is in all things waived."

While the appellants thus in writing agreed that the judgment sued upon herein had been certified in accordance with U. S. Revised Statutes, § 905 (28 U. S.C.A. § 687), cited supra, they yet undertake to contend otherwise in this court, attacking it upon a number of claimed departures and deficiencies; obviously that may not be done, but, in any event, this court has taken pains to carefully examine the certificates attached to this judgment roll, and finds them in all respects in compliance with the federal statute referred to, just as the appellants jointly agreed in the quoted stipulation; these proceedings of the California court were therefore entitled in the Texas courts to the full faith and credit given them under article 4, section 1, of the United States Constitution, and under the procedural act of Congress passed in pursuance thereof, that has been already cited.

The appellants further object, however, to the sufficiency of the appellee's petition herein declaring against them on the California judgment, on the sole ground that it did not give the docket number of the suit in the California court; plainly, in view of what has...