Rutledge v. Valley Evening Monitor
| Decision Date | 11 April 1956 |
| Docket Number | No. 13016,13016 |
| Citation | 289 S.W.2d 952 |
| Parties | Melvin RUTLEDGE, Appellant, v. VALLEY EVENING MONITOR et al., Appellees. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Roel & Sanchez, R. M. Bounds, McAllen, for appellant.
Ewers, Cox & Toothaker, William E. York, McAllen, for appellees.
This suit was instituted by Melvin Rutledge against Valley Evening Monitor and others, seeking damages allegedly resulting to him on account of the publication of an article in the Valley Evening Monitor alleged to be libelous of him, both per se and per quod.
The trial judge sustained numerous special exceptions to plaintiff's petition and after giving him ample opportunity to amend the petition entered an order dismissing plaintiff's cause with prejudice. Melvin Rutledge has prosecuted this appeal.
Appellant does not present any points contending that the court erred in sustaining numerous special exceptions to various parts of his petition, and therefore any complaint along this line was waived. Crawford v. Continental Panhandle Lines, Inc., Tex.Civ.App., 278 S.W.2d 566; Porter v. Bell, Tex.Civ.App., 287 S.W.2d 333; Rule 418, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. The complaint which he does present is that the court sustained a general demurrer to his petition, and that this was error because his petition did state a good cause of action for libel.
Appellant bases his contention that the court sustained a general demurrer to his petition on the ground that he received a letter from the trial judge telling him that he was, in effect, sustaining a general demurrer. The letter reads as follows:
'October 24, 1955
'Messrs. Ewers, Cox & Toothaker
'McAllen, Texas
'Messers. Roel & Sanchez
'McAllen, Texas
Re: A-9568-Melvin Rutledge
Valley Evening Monitor, et al.
'Gentlemen:
'Yours very truly,
'SUMcW-mt
'Judge 92nd District Court'
This letter is set out at page 18 of the transcript, but is in fact no official part of the transcript. The court entered an interlocutory order which which officially discloses what the trial court actually did. He sustained the special exceptions contained in paragraphs 1-3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15 and 19 of appellees' Second Amended Original Answer, and having sustained these exceptions held that what remained of appellant's petition was insufficient in law to state a cause of action, and granted to appellant from October 28, 1955, to November 2, 1955, to amend his petition if he so desired. What was said in the letter is immaterial and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hubler v. City of Corpus Christi
...Townsend v. Memorial Medical Center, 529 S.W.2d 264, 267 (Tex.Civ.App. Corpus Christi 1975, writ ref'd n.r.e.); Rutledge v. Valley Evening Monitor, 289 S.W.2d 952, 953 (Tex.Civ.App. San Antonio 1956, no The trial court is clothed with a large degree of discretion in ruling on special except......
-
Farias v. Besteiro
...going to the existence of a cause of action are sustained, and plaintiff refuses to amend. City of Roma, supra; Rutledge v. Valley Evening Monitor, Tex.Civ.App., 289 S.W.2d 952, The rules applicable to a bill of review were thoroughly discussed by our State Supreme Court in Alexander v. Hag......
-
Duvall v. Sadler, 9363
...Worth 1974, no writ); Tongate v. Texas Real Estate Commission, 450 S.W.2d 761 (Tex.Civ.App.--Fort Worth 1970, no writ); Rutledge v. Valley Evening Monitor, 289 S.W.2d 952 (Tex.Civ.App.--San Antonio 1956, no writ); Kinney v. Shugart, 234 S.W.2d 451 (Tex.Civ.App.--Eastland 1950, writ ref'd); ......
-
Smith v. Sun-Belt Aviation, Ltd.
...the majority indicates. The letter is unquestionably outside the record, is a nullity, and may not be considered. Rutledge v. Valley Evening Monitor et al., 289 S.W.2d 952, 953 (Tex.Civ.App.-San Antonio 1956, no The cases cited and relied upon by the majority all involve trials on the merit......