Martin Hedrick Co. v. Gotcher

Court of Appeals of Texas

Martin Hedrick Co. v. Gotcher

656 S.W.2d 509, 1983 Tex. App. LEXIS 5492

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedMarch 17, 1983

Docket10-82-170-CV

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 656 S.W.2d 509 (Martin Hedrick Co. v. Gotcher) 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

Martin Hedrick Co. v. Gotcher, 656 S.W.2d 509, 1983 Tex. App. LEXIS 5492 (Tex. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

Opinions

OPINION

THOMAS, Justice.

Appellant appeals from an adverse judgment signed August 5,1982, questioning the legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence through six points of error.

Since Appellant had filed a motion for new trial in the trial court, the statement of facts must have been filed with the appellate court on or before Monday, November 15, 1982, which would have been within 100 days after judgment was signed. Rule 386, T.R.C.P. No motion was filed to extend the time of filing under Rule 21c, T.R.C.P. The statement of facts was received and filed with the Court of Appeals on November 16, 1982, having been mailed under postmark of November 15, 1982. If the statement of facts had been postmarked one day or more prior to November 15, 1982, we could have considered same. Rule 5, T.R.C.P. The statement of facts was not timely filed, and we are, therefore, without authority to treat the statement of facts as a proper part of the record for disposing of the appeal upon its merits. B.D. Click Co. v. Safari Drilling Corp., 638 S.W.2d 860 (Tex.1982); Briscoe v. Gulf Supply Co. Inc., 612 S.W.2d 88 (Tex.Civ.App.—Fort Worth 1981, writ ref’d n.r.e.).

Under the circumstances, every presumption must be indulged in favor of the trial court’s findings and judgment, as Appellant’s point of error cannot be reviewed without a statement of facts. Home Fund, Inc. v. Garland, 520 S.W.2d 939 (Tex.Civ.App.—Fort Worth 1975, writ refused n.r.e.).

Judgment is affirmed.

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

OPINION

THOMAS, Justice.

Appellant appeals from an adverse judgment signed August 5,1982, questioning the legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence through six points of error.

Since Appellant had filed a motion for new trial in the trial court, the statement of facts must have been filed with the appellate court on or before Monday, November 15, 1982, which would have been within 100 days after judgment was signed. Rule 386, T.R.C.P. No motion was filed to extend the time of filing under Rule 21c, T.R.C.P. The statement of facts was received and filed with the Court of Appeals on November 16, 1982, having been mailed under postmark of November 15, 1982. If the statement of facts had been postmarked one day or more prior to November 15, 1982, we could have considered same. Rule 5, T.R.C.P. The statement of facts was not timely filed, and we are, therefore, without authority to treat the statement of facts as a proper part of the record for disposing of the appeal upon its merits. B.D. Click Co. v. Safari Drilling Corp., 638 S.W.2d 860 (Tex.1982); Briscoe v. Gulf Supply Co. Inc., 612 S.W.2d 88 (Tex.Civ.App.—Fort Worth 1981, writ ref’d n.r.e.).

Under the circumstances, every presumption must be indulged in favor of the trial court’s findings and judgment, as Appellant’s point of error cannot be reviewed without a statement of facts. Home Fund, Inc. v. Garland, 520 S.W.2d 939 (Tex.Civ.App.—Fort Worth 1975, writ refused n.r.e.).

Judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

656 S.W.2d 509, 1983 Tex. App. LEXIS 5492, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/martin-hedrick-co-v-gotcher-texapp-1983.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack