Barfield v. Emery

177 S.W. 952, 107 Tex. 306, 1915 Tex. LEXIS 155
CourtTexas Supreme Court
DecidedJune 26, 1915
DocketApp. No. 8248. No. 2763.
StatusPublished
Cited by46 cases

This text of 177 S.W. 952 (Barfield v. Emery) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Texas Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Barfield v. Emery, 177 S.W. 952, 107 Tex. 306, 1915 Tex. LEXIS 155 (Tex. 1915).

Opinion

Mr. Chief Justice PHILLIPS

delivered the opinion of the court.

An answer having been filed by the defendants to the petition for writ of error, we are enabled to decide the case.

It is one in which the Honorable Court of Civil Appeals for the Second District has reversed the judgment of the trial court there rendered in favor of the plaintiff in error because of the failure of the trial court to file his findings of fact and conclusions of law upon the motion of the defendants in error, within ten days after the adjournment of the term. A bill of exception contains an explanation of the trial judge of his omission to file his conclusions within the statutory period, due, as stated by him, to the fact that his home was under quarantine during the period necessary for their preparation; this explanation, however, being controverted by opposing affidavits. Although the conclusions of the trial judge were not duly filed, it appears that statement of facts was duly prepared and filed and accompanied the record on the appeal.

We agree with the view expressed in the dissenting opinion of Chief Justice Conner that it does not appear that the omission of the trial judge to duly file his conclusions prevented a proper presentation of the questions involved in the appeal, or that it could have operated to the prejudice of the appellants in that court. We are of opinion therefore that it did not in itself warrant a reversal of the judgment.

Since it appears that the judgment was reversed upon this ground, in reversing the judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals, the case is re *307 manded to that court for further consideration. A more extended opinion will be later filed.

Reversed and remanded to the Court of Civil Appeals.

The more extended opinion in this case has not yet been filed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Randall v. Jennings
788 S.W.2d 931 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1990)
Joseph v. Joseph
731 S.W.2d 597 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1987)
Fraser v. Goldberg
552 S.W.2d 592 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1977)
Kitchens v. Kitchens
372 S.W.2d 249 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1963)
McClendon v. McClendon
289 S.W.2d 640 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1956)
Gonzales v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.
266 S.W.2d 238 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1954)
Bostwick v. Bucklin
190 S.W.2d 818 (Texas Supreme Court, 1945)
Barry v. Barry
162 S.W.2d 440 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1942)
Panhandle & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Williams
38 S.W.2d 880 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1931)
Valley Box Crate Factory v. Acker
31 S.W.2d 1090 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1930)
Valley Box & Crate Factory, Inc. v. Acker
31 S.W.2d 1090 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1930)
Rothschild Bros. Hat Co. v. Rolnick Bros.
26 S.W.2d 430 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1930)
Fidelity Union Fire Ins. Co. v. Pruitt
13 S.W.2d 717 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1928)
Fidelity Union Fire Ins. v. Pruitt
13 S.W.2d 717 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1928)
Humble Oil & Refining Co. v. Johnston
5 S.W.2d 836 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1928)
Russell v. Lehman
300 S.W. 105 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1927)
Pizzitola v. Jeffords
294 S.W. 284 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1927)
Austin v. Freestone County
288 S.W. 870 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1926)
Katy State Bank v. Katy Bank, Unincorporated
283 S.W. 1114 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1926)
Temple Lumber Co. v. Alexander Gilmer Lumber Co.
282 S.W. 844 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1926)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
177 S.W. 952, 107 Tex. 306, 1915 Tex. LEXIS 155, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barfield-v-emery-tex-1915.