Duke v. Caldwell

Court of Appeals of Texas

Duke v. Caldwell

640 S.W.2d 373, 1982 Tex. App. LEXIS 5142

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedSeptember 2, 1982

DocketNo. 10-82-048-CV

StatusPublished

This text of 640 S.W.2d 373 (Duke v. Caldwell) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Duke v. Caldwell, 640 S.W.2d 373, 1982 Tex. App. LEXIS 5142 (Tex. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION

MeDONALD, Chief Justice.

This cause is before us on petition for writ of error to a $5,000.00 default judgment rendered against petitioner in suit for attorney’s fees assertedly due in five separate cases and legal matters.

There is no statement of facts in this case, and the record reflects the affidavit of the court reporter that the case was not reported.

Petitioner seeks reversal asserting he was entitled to a statement of facts.

Petitioner is entitled to a complete statement of facts in question and answer form, and if through no fault of his own, he is unable to procure such a statement of facts his right to have his cause reviewed on appeal can be preserved to him in no other way than a reversal and retrial of the case. Victory v. Hamilton, 127 Tex. 203, 91 S.W.2d 697; Gibbs v. Crittenden (Waco, Tex.Civ.App.) NWH, 262 S.W.2d 804; Edmond, Inc. v. Schilling (Waco, Tex.Civ.App.) NWH, 501 S.W.2d 432; Goodin v. Geller (Waco, Tex.Civ.App.) NRE, 521 S.W.2d 158; Silverstein v. Natkin (Waco, Tex.Civ.App.) NWH, 575 S.W.2d 320; Kothman v. Miller Seed Co. (Waco, Tex.Civ.App.) NWH, 593 S.W.2d 776; Rogers v. Rogers, Tex., 561 S.W.2d 172.

REVERSED & REMANDED.

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

OPINION

MeDONALD, Chief Justice.

This cause is before us on petition for writ of error to a $5,000.00 default judgment rendered against petitioner in suit for attorney’s fees assertedly due in five separate cases and legal matters.

There is no statement of facts in this case, and the record reflects the affidavit of the court reporter that the case was not reported.

Petitioner seeks reversal asserting he was entitled to a statement of facts.

Petitioner is entitled to a complete statement of facts in question and answer form, and if through no fault of his own, he is unable to procure such a statement of facts his right to have his cause reviewed on appeal can be preserved to him in no other way than a reversal and retrial of the case. Victory v. Hamilton, 127 Tex. 203, 91 S.W.2d 697; Gibbs v. Crittenden (Waco, Tex.Civ.App.) NWH, 262 S.W.2d 804; Edmond, Inc. v. Schilling (Waco, Tex.Civ.App.) NWH, 501 S.W.2d 432; Goodin v. Geller (Waco, Tex.Civ.App.) NRE, 521 S.W.2d 158; Silverstein v. Natkin (Waco, Tex.Civ.App.) NWH, 575 S.W.2d 320; Kothman v. Miller Seed Co. (Waco, Tex.Civ.App.) NWH, 593 S.W.2d 776; Rogers v. Rogers, Tex., 561 S.W.2d 172.

REVERSED & REMANDED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

640 S.W.2d 373, 1982 Tex. App. LEXIS 5142, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/duke-v-caldwell-texapp-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack