United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Loyd

Court of Appeals of Texas

United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Loyd

278 S.W. 282

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedNovember 19, 1925

DocketNo. 3126.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 278 S.W. 282 (United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Loyd) 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

United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Loyd, 278 S.W. 282 (Tex. Ct. App. 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

WILLSON, C. J.

This was a suit by appellant to set aside an award of damages against it in favor of appellees for the death of Paul Loyd, son of appellees P. S. Loyd and Mrs. Lela Loyd, his wife, made by the Industrial Accident Board under the Workmen’s Compensation Law (articles 5246 — 1 to 5246 —91, Vernon’s Statutes), in which judgment was rendered in favor of appellees.

The record sent to this court is without a statement of facts, and appellant as *283 signs as error entitling it to a reve :sal of the judgment the fact that the trial cmrt failed to comply with its request that he “state in writing the conclusions of fact found hy him separately from the conclusions of law,” and file same with the clerk within 10 days after the expiration (on January 31, 1925) of the term of the court at which the judgment was rendered. It appears in the record that the judge undertook to make such a statement, hut that same was not filed until March 5, 1925, which was more than 30 days after the end of the term. It seems to he settled that, ¡“after 10 days have elapsed from the adjournment of the' court, the power of the trial judge to file conclusions of fact and law ceases,” without reference to whether there was a reason (and in this case it seems from the judge’s qualification of the bill of exceptions there was one) for delaying the filing of the statement beyond that time or not. Articles 1989 and 2075, Vernon’s Statutes; Oil Co. v. Lumber Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 162 S.W. 1183, and authorities there cited; Sands v. Lemmerhirt (Tex. Civ. App.) 262 S. W. 125; Robison v. Galloway, 278 S. W. 282, decided by this court October 29, 1925, and not [officially] yet reported; Osborne v. Ayers (Tex. Civ. App.) 32 S. W. 73; Love v. Rempe (Tex. Civ. App.) 44 S. W. 681. The contention presented by the assignment is sustained, and the judgment will be reversed, and the cause will be remanded to the court below for a new trial.

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

WILLSON, C. J.

This was a suit by appellant to set aside an award of damages against it in favor of appellees for the death of Paul Loyd, son of appellees P. S. Loyd and Mrs. Lela Loyd, his wife, made by the Industrial Accident Board under the Workmen’s Compensation Law (articles 5246 — 1 to 5246 —91, Vernon’s Statutes), in which judgment was rendered in favor of appellees.

The record sent to this court is without a statement of facts, and appellant as *283 signs as error entitling it to a reve :sal of the judgment the fact that the trial cmrt failed to comply with its request that he “state in writing the conclusions of fact found hy him separately from the conclusions of law,” and file same with the clerk within 10 days after the expiration (on January 31, 1925) of the term of the court at which the judgment was rendered. It appears in the record that the judge undertook to make such a statement, hut that same was not filed until March 5, 1925, which was more than 30 days after the end of the term. It seems to he settled that, ¡“after 10 days have elapsed from the adjournment of the' court, the power of the trial judge to file conclusions of fact and law ceases,” without reference to whether there was a reason (and in this case it seems from the judge’s qualification of the bill of exceptions there was one) for delaying the filing of the statement beyond that time or not. Articles 1989 and 2075, Vernon’s Statutes; Oil Co. v. Lumber Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 162 S.W. 1183, and authorities there cited; Sands v. Lemmerhirt (Tex. Civ. App.) 262 S. W. 125; Robison v. Galloway, 278 S. W. 282, decided by this court October 29, 1925, and not [officially] yet reported; Osborne v. Ayers (Tex. Civ. App.) 32 S. W. 73; Love v. Rempe (Tex. Civ. App.) 44 S. W. 681. The contention presented by the assignment is sustained, and the judgment will be reversed, and the cause will be remanded to the court below for a new trial.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

278 S.W. 282, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-fidelity-guaranty-co-v-loyd-texapp-1925.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack