From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Whatley v. Davis

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas, Texarkana
Apr 14, 1938
116 S.W.2d 466 (Tex. Civ. App. 1938)

Opinion

No. 5302.

April 14, 1938.

Appeal from District Court, Marion County; Newman Phillips, Judge.

Action by E. L. Whatley and wife against W. G. Davis and others for injuries sustained. From an adverse judgment, plaintiffs appeal.

Affirmed.

Cornelius Heaton, of Jefferson, for appellants.

Darden, Burleson Wilson, of Waco, for appellees.


This appeal of appellants, E. L. Whatley and wife, plaintiffs below, from a judgment which denied them a recovery, is predicated upon alleged misconduct of the jury, in that they obtained and consulted a Webster's Revised Dictionary and used same in determining the meaning and definition of the words "preponderance" and "proximate cause" while deliberating upon and in answering the special issues which contained these terms. The jury answered that certain negligent acts of defendant W. G. Davis and of defendant Horace Collins each were a proximate cause of the injuries, and likewise that certain acts of Horace Whatley, son of plaintiffs, proximately caused or contributed to his injury. The motion for new trial and the affidavits in support thereof are silent as to the definitions contained in the dictionary, and in what respect, if any, they were contrary to the instructions in the court's charge.

This record is before us without a statement of facts or a bill of exception. The transcript discloses this motion was filed December 10th, two days prior to adjournment of court, and was never acted upon by the trial court, and does not disclose by bill of exception the cause of the failure of the trial court to act upon same. City of Henderson v. Fields, Tex. Civ. App. 194 S.W. 1003. The explanation should have been presented by bill of exception which could have been filed and approved after adjournment of court. The purpose of such a bill is to show what transpired in the trial court, and to make that a part of the record which otherwise would not be a part thereof. Article 2237, R.C.S. of 1925; 3 Tex.Jur. pp. 565 and 661; 4 Cor.Jur.Sec., Appeal and Error, p. 1161, § 680; Holmes v. Coalson, Tex. Civ. App. 178 S.W. 628. Allegations in motions for new trial as to alleged jury misconduct or in affidavits supporting same cannot take the place of a bill so as to authorize a review of such matters. 3 Tex.Jur. p. 581, § 407; 4 Cor.Jur.Sec., Appeal and Error, p. 1237, § 762.

The judgment is affirmed.


Summaries of

Whatley v. Davis

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas, Texarkana
Apr 14, 1938
116 S.W.2d 466 (Tex. Civ. App. 1938)
Case details for

Whatley v. Davis

Case Details

Full title:WHATLEY et ux. v. DAVIS et al

Court:Court of Civil Appeals of Texas, Texarkana

Date published: Apr 14, 1938

Citations

116 S.W.2d 466 (Tex. Civ. App. 1938)

Citing Cases

Murray v. Murray

The purpose of a bill of exceptions is simply to show what occurred in the trial court. Gulf Coast Transport…

Hartford Accident Indem. v. Ethridge

4 S.W.2d 569, writ refused; Safeway Stores v. Rutherford, Tex.Civ.App. 101 S.W.2d 1055; Id., 130 Tex. 465,…