Groves v. Rosenthal

371 S.W.2d 792, 1963 Tex. App. LEXIS 1746
CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedOctober 17, 1963
Docket14199
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 371 S.W.2d 792 (Groves v. Rosenthal) 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
Groves v. Rosenthal, 371 S.W.2d 792, 1963 Tex. App. LEXIS 1746 (Tex. Ct. App. 1963).

Opinion

COLEMAN, Justice.

This is a suit for debt. The judgment of the trial court must be reversed because of the failure of the trial court to file findings ■of fact and conclusions of law in response to a timely request..

Where findings of fact and conclusions of law have been filed by the trial court, and additional findings of fact are requested, the trial court must make findings ■on the points requested, if such points relate to elements of the ultimate and controlling issues in the case. Rule 298, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure; Grant v. Taylor, Tex.Civ.App., 339 S.W.2d 554; Tijerina v. Botello, Tex.Civ.App., 207 S.W.2d 136; Jinks v. Jinks, Tex.Civ.App., 205 S.W.2d 816.

While the defendant did not plead payment or illegality, which are affirmative defenses, evidence was admitted without objection on both of these issues, and the evidence was conflicting in many respects. The issues were tried by consent under Rule 67, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure; Bednarz v. State, 142 Tex. 138, 176 S.W.2d 562; Thomas v. Linder, Tex.Civ.App., 231 S.W.2d 891, writ ref.

The failure of the trial court to make findings of fact with respect to these defensive issues probably prevented appellant from making a proper presentation of the case in this Court, and, therefore, constitutes reversible error. Galveston, H. & S. A. Ry. Co. v. Stewart & Threadgill, Tex.Com.App., 257 S.W. 526; Richie v. State of Texas, Tex.Civ.App., 275 S.W.2d 723.

The judgment of the trial court is reversed and the case is remanded for a new trial.

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

Related

Hooper v. Sanford
968 S.W.2d 392 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1997)
Brownsville Navigation District v. Izaguirre
800 S.W.2d 244 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1990)
Hogan v. City of Tyler
602 S.W.2d 555 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1980)
Hazelwood v. Jinkins
580 S.W.2d 33 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1979)
Stolte v. MacK Financial Corporation
457 S.W.2d 172 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1970)
Spitzmiller v. Spitzmiller
429 S.W.2d 557 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1968)
Friedman v. Cohen
429 S.W.2d 510 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1968)
Rosenthal v. Groves
387 S.W.2d 920 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1965)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
371 S.W.2d 792, 1963 Tex. App. LEXIS 1746, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/groves-v-rosenthal-texapp-1963.