Rehkopf v. Texarkana Newspapers, Inc., 7990
| Court | Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Civil Appeals of Texas |
| Citation | 460 S.W.2d 939 |
| Docket Number | No. 7990,7990 |
| Parties | Billy J. REHKOPF, Appellant, v. TEXARKANA NEWSPAPERS, INC., et al., Appellees. |
| Decision Date | 29 September 1970 |
Page 939
v.
TEXARKANA NEWSPAPERS, INC., et al., Appellees.
Texarkana.
Rehearing Denied Oct. 20, 1970.
Harry Friedman, B. A. Britt, Jr., Harkness, Friedman & Kusin, Texarkana, for appellant.
William L. Peek, Jr., Wheeler, Watkins, Hubbard, Patton & Peek, Texarkana, for appellees.
DAVIS, Justice.
This is a suit for libel and slander. The parties will be referred to as they were in the trial court. Plaintiff, Billy J. Rehkopf, sued Texarkana Gazette, (morning newspaper) and Texarkana Daily News, (afternoon newspaper) that are published by defendant Texarkana Newspapers, Inc., because of the printing of certain headlines and news articles in each of the newspapers on Jan. 24, 1969. At the time of the publications of the headlines and the articles, plaintiff was the sole proprietor of the City Trash and Refuse Service and had an exclusive franchise with the City of Texarkana, Texas, for garbage collection for several years prior to Jan. 24, 1969, on that date, and subsequent thereto.
The case was tried before a jury. All special issues were answered in favor of the defendants. Judgment was signed and entered on July 25, 1969. A motion for new trial was filed on July 28, 1969. The motion for new trial was overruled on September 5, 1969. Notice of appeal was given and an appeal bond was approved and filed on September 12, 1969.
On October 27, 1969, a plain unverified motion was filed by plaintiff, setting up the fact that the time would expire on November 4, 1969, to file the transcript and statement of facts, and requested an extension of 90 days after November 4, 1969, in which to file the transcript and statement of facts. There was no written evidence from the District Clerk, or the Court Reporter, to verify the fact that the transcript and statement of facts could not be prepared and ready for filing on or before Nov. 4, 1969. We granted the motion in violation of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Rules 5, and 386.
The transcript was filed in this court on Nov. 5, 1969,--one day too late.
Plaintiff filed another motion for extension of time to file the statement of facts on Jan. 28, 1970. He merely made the statement that the Court Reporter had not completed the statement of facts and would be unable to do so within the time already illegally allowed by this Court. He requested 90 days extension. There was no evidence in writing from the Court Reporter certifying to the fact that the statement of facts was not prepared, or that she would need 90 days to get it ready for filing. We violated the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure and granted that motion. Rules 5, and 386. The statement of facts was filed in this Court on May 1, 1970.
Page 941
A 'Good cause' must be shown in a motion to extend the time to file a transcript, or statement of facts, in the Court of Civil Appeals. That requires some evidence, in writing, in this case from the District Clerk, and the Court Reporter. The time is limited by Rule 386, T.R.C.P., Barron v. Barron, Tex.Civ.App., 1963, 365 S.W.2d 425, n.w.h. An error by the Court of Civil Appeals in granting motions for extensions of time to file the transcript, and the statement of facts, after the prescribed time had expired, without the movant first showing a 'good cause' to exist, is a matter that cannot be waived. Straley v . Commissioners' Court of Lampasas County, Tex.Civ.App., 1953, 266 S .W.2d 469, n.w.h.
Although, we erroneously granted appellant's motions for extensions of time to file the transcript and statement of facts where the appellant did not show any good cause for such delay, does not give this court jurisdiction of this appeal. The motions did not contain any evidence from the District Clerk, or the Court Reporter; therefore, the extensions of time were not procured in the proper manner. Magnolia Petroleum Company v. Klingeman, Tex.Civ.App ., 1951, 242 S.W.2d 950, er. ref. There are several 'good cause', or grounds, for extension of time to file the transcript and statement of facts in the Court of Civil Appeals; but, those 'good causes' must be shown by some evidence in writing, or an affidavit, signed by the Clerk of the Court and/or the Court Reporter.
In this case, the transcript was filed just one day too late. A delay in filing the transcript and the statement of facts does not show a good cause. Whitt v. Hartgraves, Tex.Civ.App., 1967, 412 S.W .2d 344, n.w.h. Where a lack of diligence on the part...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Frank B. Hall & Co., Inc. v. Buck, C14-82-234CV
...Workmen of North America, 550 S.W.2d 744, 747 (Tex.Civ.App.--Dallas 1977, writ ref'd n.r.e.); Rehkopf v. Texarkana Newspapers, Inc., 460 S.W.2d 939, 942 (Tex.Civ.App.--Texarkana 1970, writ ref'd n.r.e.); Templeton v. Rogers, 450 S.W.2d 900, 902 (Tex.Civ.App.--Beaumont 1970, writ dism'd); Gu......
-
Home Fund, Inc. v. Garland, 17582
...such proof a court of civil appeals is not authorized to grant the extension of time prayed for. Rehkopf v. Texarkana Newspapers, Inc., 460 S.W.2d 939 (Texarkana Civ.App., 1970, ref., n.r.e.); Bean v. City of Arlington, 464 S.W.2d 208 (Fort Worth Civ.App., 1971, no writ hist.); Rhodes v. Tu......
-
Sisk v. Parker, 8162
...v. City of Fort Worth, 357 S.W.2d 581 (Tex.Civ.App.--Fort Worth 1962, writ ref'd n.r.e.); and Rehkopf v. Texarkana Newspapers, Inc., 460 S.W.2d 939 (Tex.Civ.App.--Texarkana 1970, writ ref'd n.r.e.), cited by appellee. But those cases do not hold that Rule 386 makes mandatory such an affidav......
-
Warner v. Cox, 831
...for the delay. Carter v. City of Fort Worth, 357 S.W.2d 581 (Tex.Civ.App.--Fort Worth 1962), writ ref'd. n.r.e. Rehkopf v. Texarkana, 460 S.W.2d 939 (Civ.App. Texarkana 1970) writ ref'd n.r.e. and cases cited therein. Fellers v. Anco Sales Co., 327 S.W.2d 979 (Tex.Civ.App.--San Antonio 1959......