Whitaker v. Gee
| Decision Date | 27 February 1884 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 1807. |
| Citation | 61 Tex. 217 |
| Parties | COURTENAY A. WHITAKER v. GEO. L. GEE. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
ERROR from Waller. Tried below before the Hon. Wm. H. Burkhart.E. Blanc, for plaintiff in error.
No briefs for defendant in error on file.
It appears from the record that Alfred Whitaker was a party defendant duly served, but it does not appear in any way that as to him the cause was dismissed.
The judgment, however, makes no disposition of the case as to him, but was rendered in favor of his co-defendants against the plaintiff. This is not such a final judgment as this court can revise, and for this reason the writ of error will have to be dismissed.
We deem it, however, proper to say that, were the judgment a final judgment, we could not revise the rulings of the court below in rejecting evidence or passing on its sufficiency on the transcript as now presented.
It is claimed that the court erred in excluding the evidence of A. Whitaker, which, it is claimed, was introduced to prove the genuineness of the signature of John E. Whitaker to a deed to the plaintiff, by and through which she claimed an interest in the land sued for.
There was no bill of exceptions taken to the ruling of the court on any such matter, so far as is made to appear in the transcript.
There is what purports to be a statement of facts made out by the judge who tried the cause, purporting to be signed by him on the 26th of April, 1881, and filed on the 27th of the same month. The term at which the cause was tried ended on the 19th of April, 1881, and there is no order found in the transcript allowing the statement of facts to be made up after the adjournment of the court. Such being the case, this paper cannot be considered for any purpose.
That paper is, however, more in the nature of a bill of exceptions than a statement of facts, and refers to the action of the court in excluding the deed under which the plaintiff claimed title, and shows that the deed was excluded because, in the opinion of the court, its execution had not been proved.
This paper contains no statement of what proof was made of the execution of the deed, and, if it had been filed in proper time, it would be insufficient, either as a bill of exceptions or statement of facts, to enable us to revise the action of the court below.
To entitle a party to the revision of the ruling of a court below in regard to the admission or rejection of evidence, the matter must be so presented by bill of exceptions filed in proper time as to enable...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Parrish v. Wright
...of counsel, even when concurred in by the trial judge (Holliday v. Cromwell, 26 Tex. 188; Taylor v. Campbell, 59 Tex. 315; Whitaker v. Gee, 61 Tex. 217; Trinity & S. Railway v. Lane, 79 Tex. 643, 15 S. W. 477, 16 S. W. 18; McDowell v. Fowler, 80 Tex. 587, 16 S. W. 431; M., K. & T. Railway C......
-
United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Richey
...55 Am. Dec. 774; Long v. Garnett, 45 Tex. 400; Linn v. Arambould, 55 Tex. 611; Wootters v. Kauffman, 67 Tex. 488, 3 S. W. 465; Whitaker v. Gee, 61 Tex. 217; Nalle v. Harrell (Tex. Com. App.) 12 S.W. (2d) 550. However upon further we have concluded that the ruling was erroneous and that appe......
-
Texas Cities Gas Co. v. Dickens
...is whether it disposes of the whole matter in controversy as to all of the parties. Mignon v. Brinson, 74 Tex. 18, 11 S.W. 903; Whitaker v. Gee, 61 Tex. 217; Havard v. Carter-Kelley Lbr. Co., Tex.Civ.App., 162 S. W. 922; Gulf, C. & S. F. R. Co. v. Atlantic Fruit Distributors, Tex.Civ.App., ......
-
Kosse Nat. Bank v. Derden
...and this court is therefore without jurisdiction of this appeal. Wootters v. Kauffman, 67 Tex. 488, 496, et seq., 3 S. W. 465; Whitaker v. Gee, 61 Tex. 217, 218; Oilmen's Reciprocal Ass'n v. Coe (Tex. Civ. App.) 6 S.W. (2d) 1046, 1047, par. 4, and authorities there cited; Community Natural ......