Richards v. Allen
| Decision Date | 16 March 1966 |
| Docket Number | No. A--10963,A--10963 |
| Parties | William L. RICHARDS, Petitioner, v. Weldon J. ALLEN, Respondent. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Andress, Woodgate, Richards & Condos, Dallas, for petitioner.
Thompson, Knight, Wright & Simmons, Frank Finn, Jr., and George C. Chapman, Dallas, with above firm, for respondent.
On May 18, 1964, the trial court granted a motion for summary judgment and decreed that the plaintiff, Weldon J. Allen, individually and as trustee, recover of and from the defendant, William L. Richards, the sum of $8,959.78. This judgment was interlocutory, but on June 26, 1964, over Richards' objection, the trial court granted Allen's motion to sever a third party action which Richards had asserted against W. C. Hummelbaugh, John G. Wilson and International Credit Bank, as third party defendants. This action rendered Allen's money judgment against Richards final and appealable. Upon Richards' appeal, the Court of Civil Appeals affirmed. 391 S.W.2d 795. Richards is the petitioner here.
The record in this case is not entirely clear and in some respects it is contradictory. The order granting the summary judgment recites that:
'Upon reading, reviewing and examining all of the pleadings on file, all of plaintiff's sworn pleadings on file herein and the oral deposition of defendant, William L. Richards, taken herein on November 15, 1963, and after hearing evidence and full and complete argument of counsel, the Court is of the opinion that plaintiff's motion for summary judgment should be in all things sustained.'
The Court of Civil Appeals evidently considered that some evidence was introduced upon the summary judgment hearing and as no statement of facts was filed in that Court, indulged the usual presumption that such evidence would support the judgment rendered. The disposition of a cause by summary judgment may effectively adjudicate the merits of a dispute, but the summary judgment proceeding is not a conventional trial but rather an exception to the usual and traditional form of procedure wherein witnesses are heard in open court and documentary evidence is offered and received in evidence. Rule 166--A, relating to summary judgments, is contained in that portion of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure relating to pre-trial procedures. Its obvious purpose is to dispose of a cause summarily without a trial in the conventional or traditional sense. The rule does not provide for a hybrid form of trial nor extend an open invitation to procedural experimentation. The matters which may properly be considered as bases for a summary judgment are specifically set forth. They are 'the pleadings, depositions, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any'. Rule 166--A, paragraph (c). The motion for summary judgment filed herein states that it is based upon: The transcript does not show that either Allen's petition or his motion for summary judgment were verified,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Coward v. Gateway Nat. Bank of Beaumont
...evidence properly made a part of the summary judgment may be considered by the court. Gardner v. Martin, fn. 2, supra; Richards v. Allen, 402 S.W.2d 158, 161 (Tex.1966); State v. Easley, 404 S.W.2d 296, 297 (Tex.1966). Thus, only in a conventional trial without a jury, wherein the trial jud......
-
Shelton v. Kalbow
...with the trial court more than 21 days prior to the summary judgment hearing. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 166a(c) ; see also Richards v. Allen, 402 S.W.2d 158, 161 (Tex.1966) (summary judgment proof must “be on file, either independently or as part of the motion for summary judgment, the reply ther......
-
Bland ISD v. Blue, 99-0231
...expressly forbids its use. Tex. R. Civ. P. 166a(c) ("No oral testimony shall be received at the hearing."); see also Richards v. Allen, 402 S.W.2d 158, 161 (Tex. 1966) (supplementation of summary judgment evidence should be by affidavit or deposition rather than oral testimony). I am not su......
-
Miller v. State
...337, 340 (Tex.Civ.App.--Texarkana, 1974, writ ref'd n.r.e.).7 The Supreme Court cites as authority its earlier opinion in Richards v. Allen, 402 S.W.2d 158 (Tex.1966) wherein at page 161 the late Justice Norvell, in his usual scholarly fashion, explained, that the rule "does not purport to ......