Howard v. Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co.
Decision Date | 01 March 1911 |
Citation | 135 S.W. 707 |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Parties | HOWARD v. GULF, C. & S. F. RY. CO. |
Appeal from District Court, Montgomery County; L. B. Hightower, Judge.
Action by E. F. Howard against the Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fé Railway Company. From the judgment, plaintiff appeals. On appellee's motion to strike the statement of facts. Motion overruled.
F. J. Duff and W. N. Foster, for the motion. Nugent & McMahon, opposed.
This case was tried in the district court of Montgomery county, and appealed to the Court of Civil Appeals for the Second district, and, by order of the Supreme Court, has been transferred to this court. After the case reached this court, appellee filed a motion to strike out the statement of facts for the following reasons: "Because said statement of facts was not filed in the trial court or with the clerk of the trial court within the time allowed by law and the orders of the court trying said cause, and in this connection the appellee upon information and belief states the following: That the time allowed for the filing of said statement of facts expired prior to the 18th day of April, 1910, to wit, on April 16, 1910; that said statement of facts was not handed or sent to the clerk of said court until April 18, 1910; that said clerk placed his file mark upon said statement of facts as of that date, April 18, 1910; that subsequent to thus filing said statement of facts the clerk of said court changed his file mark and made the same read April 14, 1910, which was not the true date when said statement of facts reached the clerk of said court or was filed with him; and in this connection the appellee refers the court to the file mark contained on the back of said statement of facts now on file with the record in this cause in this court, and to the certificate of the clerk of the trial court, which is hereto attached and made a part of this motion."
The motion is accompanied by and predicated upon the following official statement made by the district clerk of Montgomery county (caption omitted):
The record shows that the 17th day of April, 1910, was the last day on which the statement of facts could properly have been filed. Appellant has filed an answer to the motion controverting the facts stated in the clerk's certificate. His answer contains affidavits made by both of his attorneys. One of the attorneys swears as follows: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Texas Employers' Ins. Ass'n v. Teel
...1915A, 572, it was held that the clerk of a court should place on papers filed the actual date of filing. In Howard v. Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 135 S. W. 707, 709, it is said: "It is not only the general duty of a clerk to treat all litigants impartially, but it is his espe......
-
Brinson v. Georgia R. Bank & Trust Co.
... ... 11 C.J. 887; ... Civil Code 1910, §§ 4891, 4892, 6080. He must indorse the ... correct date of filing on all papers filed with him ... Howard v. Gulf, etc., R. Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 135 ... S.W. 707; Davis v. State, 74 Tex. Cr. R. 298, 167 ... S.W. 1108, L.R.A. 1915A, 572 ... [165 S.E ... ...
-
Brinson v. Ga. R. Bank & Trust Co
...Civil Code 1910, §§ 4891, 4892, 6080. He must indorse the correct date of filing on all papers filed with him. Howard v. Gulf, etc., R. Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 135 S. W. 707; Davis v. State, 74 Tex. Cr. R. 298, 167 S. W. 1108, L. R. A. 1915A, 572. The presumption of law is that all public offi......
-
Howard v. Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co.
...the Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fé Railway Company. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals. Reversed and remanded. See, also, 135 S. W. 707. Nugent & McMahon, for appellant. Terry, Cavin & Mills, F. J. & C. T. Duff, and Llewellyn & Foster, for KEY, C. J. This is a personal injury suit,......