Rody v. Whitaker

Court of Appeals of Texas

Rody v. Whitaker

37 S.W.2d 288, 1931 Tex. App. LEXIS 278

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedMarch 19, 1931

DocketNo. 4012.

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 37 S.W.2d 288 (Rody v. Whitaker) 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

Rody v. Whitaker, 37 S.W.2d 288, 1931 Tex. App. LEXIS 278 (Tex. Ct. App. 1931).

Pincite

Opinion

SELLERS, J.

This is an appeal from the county court of Van Zandt county, in which the defendant recovered a judgment against the plaintiff. The case is here without a statement of fact, in the absence of which, this court will consider only such errors as are apparent of record, and in this case we find no such to exist.

However, since appellant’s principal complaint is of the court’s action in failing to continue the case because the plaintiff was sick and unable to be present in court when the case was tried, we will add that we know *289 of no law which requires the plaintiff to be present when his case is tried, and since there is nothing in the record to show that the plaintiff would have testified to material facts had he been present, there was no error.by the court in refusing to grant appellant’s motion for a new trial based upon such assignment.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

SELLERS, J.

This is an appeal from the county court of Van Zandt county, in which the defendant recovered a judgment against the plaintiff. The case is here without a statement of fact, in the absence of which, this court will consider only such errors as are apparent of record, and in this case we find no such to exist.

However, since appellant’s principal complaint is of the court’s action in failing to continue the case because the plaintiff was sick and unable to be present in court when the case was tried, we will add that we know *289 of no law which requires the plaintiff to be present when his case is tried, and since there is nothing in the record to show that the plaintiff would have testified to material facts had he been present, there was no error.by the court in refusing to grant appellant’s motion for a new trial based upon such assignment.

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

37 S.W.2d 288, 1931 Tex. App. LEXIS 278, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rody-v-whitaker-texapp-1931.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack