Scroggins v. L. R. Neece Lumber Co.

138 S.W. 789, 1911 Tex. App. LEXIS 1018
Court of Appeals of Texas·Decided June 3, 1911·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

RAINEY, C. J.

We find in the record a bill of exceptions duly signed by the trial judge that in due time after the trial was ended, the case having been tried by the court without a jury, the appellant filed a written request for the court to prepare and file conclusions of law and fact, which request was duly called- to the attention of the judge within said term and before final adjournment, but the judge failed to comply with said request, and said cause is here without any conclusions of law and fact.

The judge appended to the bill reasons why such conclusions were not prepared and filed, which exonerate him from willful neglect, but it does .not relieve the appellant of being deprived of a substantial right to which he is entitled under the statute.

For the 4error in failing to prepare and file such conclusions (Wandry v. Williams [Sup.] 124 S. W. 86), the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

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

Scroggins v. L. R. Neece Lumber Co., 138 S.W. 789, 1911 Tex. App. LEXIS 1018 (Tex. Ct. App. 1911).

138 S.W. 789 (Scroggins v. L. R. Neece Lumber Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Marvin v. Kennison Bros
230 S.W. 831 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1921)
Beavers v. Supreme Home of Ancient Order of Pilgrims
204 S.W. 718 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1918)
Averill v. Wierhauser
175 S.W. 794 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1915)
Houston Oil Co. of Texas v. Ragley-McWilliams Lumber Co.
162 S.W. 1183 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1913)
Guadalupe County v. Poth
153 S.W. 919 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1913)