Rasbach v. Minchen

Court of Appeals of Texas

Rasbach v. Minchen

559 S.W.2d 913, 1977 Tex. App. LEXIS 3729

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedDecember 15, 1977

DocketNo. 5853

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 559 S.W.2d 913 (Rasbach v. Minchen) 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

Rasbach v. Minchen, 559 S.W.2d 913, 1977 Tex. App. LEXIS 3729 (Tex. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

HALL, Justice.

Appellant Roger Rasbach filed this suit against appellee W. F. Minchen in August, 1971, to recover the balance due under a contract for personal services rendered by appellant for appellee, and for attorney’s fees. The case was dismissed for want of prosecution on May 5,1977. - Appellant filed a motion to reinstate the case on the docket. After a hearing, the court denied the motion on July 29,1977. This appeal resulted. In his single point of error appellant asserts the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion to reinstate. We overrule this contention, and affirm the judgment.

Findings of fact and conclusions of law were neither requested nor filed. And, the record does not contain a statement of facts. Under these circumstances we must presume that evidence was adduced at the hearing on the motion to reinstate which supported the implied findings upon which the court based its judgment. Mays v. Pierce, 154 Tex. 487, 281 S.W.2d 79, 82 (1955); Guthrie v. National Homes Corporation, 394 S.W.2d 494, 495 (Tex.Sup. 1965); Renfro Drug Co. v. Lewis, 149 Tex. 507, 235 S.W.2d 609, 613 (1950).

The judgment is affirmed.

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

HALL, Justice.

Appellant Roger Rasbach filed this suit against appellee W. F. Minchen in August, 1971, to recover the balance due under a contract for personal services rendered by appellant for appellee, and for attorney’s fees. The case was dismissed for want of prosecution on May 5,1977. - Appellant filed a motion to reinstate the case on the docket. After a hearing, the court denied the motion on July 29,1977. This appeal resulted. In his single point of error appellant asserts the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion to reinstate. We overrule this contention, and affirm the judgment.

Findings of fact and conclusions of law were neither requested nor filed. And, the record does not contain a statement of facts. Under these circumstances we must presume that evidence was adduced at the hearing on the motion to reinstate which supported the implied findings upon which the court based its judgment. Mays v. Pierce, 154 Tex. 487, 281 S.W.2d 79, 82 (1955); Guthrie v. National Homes Corporation, 394 S.W.2d 494, 495 (Tex.Sup. 1965); Renfro Drug Co. v. Lewis, 149 Tex. 507, 235 S.W.2d 609, 613 (1950).

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

559 S.W.2d 913, 1977 Tex. App. LEXIS 3729, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rasbach-v-minchen-texapp-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack