Restrepo v. Barrios

Court of Appeals of Texas

Restrepo v. Barrios

603 S.W.2d 377, 1980 Tex. App. LEXIS 3777

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedJuly 31, 1980

Docket6189

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 603 S.W.2d 377 (Restrepo v. Barrios) 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

Restrepo v. Barrios, 603 S.W.2d 377, 1980 Tex. App. LEXIS 3777 (Tex. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

HALL, Justice-

Frank Restrepo brought this appeal for review of a judgment awarding Viola Barrios actual and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees against Restrepo and Nelson 0. Arcila upon jury findings convicting Res-trepo and Arcila of fraud and conspiracy in the sale of a partnership interest in a restaurant by Arcila to Mrs. Barrios.

The statement of facts shows that Mrs. Barrios introduced twenty exhibits on the trial of the case, including the written contract upon which the suit was based, and that Restrepo and Arcila introduced eleven exhibits. Those exhibits do not form any part of the appellate record. The parties have not stipulated that the partial statement of facts constitutes an agreed statement of facts.

Seven of Restrepo’s nine points of error relate to the legal sufficiency and factual sufficiency of the evidence. The *378 two others relate to the court’s charge to the jury. None of those complaints can be properly reviewed without a complete statement of facts. Englander Co., Inc. v. Kennedy (Tex.1968), 428 S.W.2d 806, 807; Ledford’s Performance Center v. Rhoden, 576 S.W.2d 919 (Tex.Civ.App.-Waco 1979, writ ref’d n. r. e.); Levitz Furniture Company v. State, 471 S.W.2d 452, 454 (Tex.Civ.App.-Waco 1971, writ ref’d n. r. e.); Porter v. Hooper, 529 S.W.2d 837, 838 (Tex.Civ.App.-Waco 1975, no writ). Moreover, the objections to the charge were waived because they were not raised on the trial. Rule 274, Vernon’s Tex.Rules Civ.Proc.; Ledford’s Performance Center v. Rhoden, supra.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

HALL, Justice-

Frank Restrepo brought this appeal for review of a judgment awarding Viola Barrios actual and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees against Restrepo and Nelson 0. Arcila upon jury findings convicting Res-trepo and Arcila of fraud and conspiracy in the sale of a partnership interest in a restaurant by Arcila to Mrs. Barrios.

The statement of facts shows that Mrs. Barrios introduced twenty exhibits on the trial of the case, including the written contract upon which the suit was based, and that Restrepo and Arcila introduced eleven exhibits. Those exhibits do not form any part of the appellate record. The parties have not stipulated that the partial statement of facts constitutes an agreed statement of facts.

Seven of Restrepo’s nine points of error relate to the legal sufficiency and factual sufficiency of the evidence. The *378 two others relate to the court’s charge to the jury. None of those complaints can be properly reviewed without a complete statement of facts. Englander Co., Inc. v. Kennedy (Tex.1968), 428 S.W.2d 806, 807; Ledford’s Performance Center v. Rhoden, 576 S.W.2d 919 (Tex.Civ.App.-Waco 1979, writ ref’d n. r. e.); Levitz Furniture Company v. State, 471 S.W.2d 452, 454 (Tex.Civ.App.-Waco 1971, writ ref’d n. r. e.); Porter v. Hooper, 529 S.W.2d 837, 838 (Tex.Civ.App.-Waco 1975, no writ). Moreover, the objections to the charge were waived because they were not raised on the trial. Rule 274, Vernon’s Tex.Rules Civ.Proc.; Ledford’s Performance Center v. Rhoden, supra.

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

603 S.W.2d 377, 1980 Tex. App. LEXIS 3777, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/restrepo-v-barrios-texapp-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack