Scroggins v. L. R. Neece Lumber Co.

Court of Appeals of Texas

Scroggins v. L. R. Neece Lumber Co.

138 S.W. 789, 1911 Tex. App. LEXIS 1018

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedJune 3, 1911

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 138 S.W. 789 (Scroggins v. L. R. Neece Lumber Co.) 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

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

Pincite

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

138 S.W. 789, 1911 Tex. App. LEXIS 1018, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/scroggins-v-l-r-neece-lumber-co-texapp-1911.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack