*1 Upchurch’s of WALLACE, implement Justice, intent not to dissenting. plan. bonus I respectfully dissent. Considering all of the circumstantial evi- For the reasons set out in the court of Upchurch’s dence of lack of intent appeals opinion, I would hold that there junction Upchurch’s with keep failure to support no jury finding evidence to promise, his we hold that a fact issue of Up- that on December Jessie Upchurch’s intent was raised sufficient to keep church did not promise intend to his jury submit the issue to the and that there Ralph Spoljaric concerning plan. a bonus support some evidence to jury’s an- judgment appeals the court of swer. should be affirmed. Spoljaric asserts that there is le HILL, C.J., and CAMPBELL and GON- gally support sufficient evidence to ZALEZ, JJ., join in this dissent.
jury’s punitive damages award of misrepresentation. finding fraudulent
of intent to harm or conscious indifference rights support
to the of others will exemplary damages.
award of Trenholm (Tex.1983). Ratcliff,
v. Trenholm, held this court that a fraudu enough support
lent inducement was at finding least a of conscious indifference. MILLER, Appellant Robert Edward holding sup Id. Our of some evidence to v. port Upchurch’s Spoljaric intent to induce Texas, Appellee. STATE representation a false is some evidence Therefore, of conscious indifference. there No. 961-82. support jury
is some evidence to award of Texas, Court of Criminal punitive damages. En Banc. briefs, In their parties pray both that this Jan. 1984. ap- court remand the case to the court of peals remaining Rehearing for consideration of the Denied Feb.
undisposed points of error. The court of
appeals Up- did not consider several insufficiency points
church’s factual
sufficiency damages excessiveness
points. Spoljaric’s Neither did it consider punitive damages point.
remittitur points questions
Since these are not of law questions factfinding
but of fact within the appeals, of the court of we
must the cause for remand consideration points. O’Boyle,
these Stanfield CONST, 272; V, art. S.W.2d at TEX. sec. 6. judgment appeals the court of
reversed and the cause is remanded to that
court for further consideration.
WALLACE, J., dissenting opinion files a HILL, C.J.,
in which and CAMPBELL and
GONZALEZ, JJ., join. *2 30(c),
former under Article V.A. P.C., (Acts 1973, as amended Sept. 1, Sec. Miller v. (Tex.App. - San granted petition We State’s to consid- er the correctness of the decision of the Appeals. indictment, Following appellant filed two pretrial pleas in bar of based jeopardy. on former Both were overruled. ground In his initial of error overruling tended the trial court erred plea 30(c), his based on Article V.A.P.C. (1925), 1973, arguing as amended in prohibited subsequently State was from prosecuting merely him for offense alleged adjudication petition an filed in court, pointing out he had been indicted for the same murder offense alleged adju- which had been earlier in the petition filed in dication court.1 The Court of answered this con- by stating: tention conclude, therefore, pro- “We that the 30(c) of art. controlled at the time visions trial cause of this and that under precluded its terms the from State was Eugene Lieck, Antonio, H. appel- San prosecuting appellant convicting for or lant. alleged against him him in offense White, Bill Atty. M. Dist. and Edward F. juve- in the III, Shaughnessy, Mata, Ron Lawrence J. Accordingly, prosecution nile court. McNeel, Douglas Souza and V. Asst. Dist. adult in violation of the former was Attys., Antonio, Huttash, San and Robert 30(c). jeopardy explicit Appel- in art. Austin, Atty., State’s for the State. ground of error is sus- lant’s initial tained.” adopt reasoning holding We both the Appeals, accordingly its of the Court of OPINION ON STATE’S PETITION FOR judgment affirmed. DISCRETIONARY REVIEW CAMPBELL, ONION, dissenting. Judge. Presiding Judge, Appellant appellant, murder and convicted of murder and was convicted of imprisonment by jury. imprisonment by jury, assessed life life has assessed He played game of courts and won. appeal Ap- On the San Antonio Court system. has beaten the peals panel opinion in a reversed the convic- holding opinion panel that the trial erred in of the San Antonio overruling appellant’s pretrial plea Appeals reversing the conviction bar Court of prosection statutory standing by today’s majority. based on a claim of is left question alleged 1. There no in this that the same case the same adjudication alleged delinquency. murder offense in the indictment 26-year-old now appellant, who was 16 and could been in not have effect at the offense, old at the time time of original juve cannot now in any court, be tried state proceeding. 30(c) nile inwas effect juvenile, adult or for the 1974 murder of procedural replaced statute and was him, which jury convicted the sufficien- procedural another statute effective at the cy of which evidence to sustain the convic- Y.T.C.A., time of the trial. *3 tion is not challenged appellant. 8.07(c), Normally as amended 1975. pro After years almost 10 and proceedings in- cedural statutes control from their effec volving separate appellate six sets of opin- Appeals, tive date. The without ions, appellant goes free because a reasoning, did legisla not consider the 1975 statute, one of the originally oddities tive acts relevant to the instant cause. provided enacted that mere (See Appeals’ opinion footnote #3 of Court of allegation in an offense State, supra.) —M iller v. The court adjudication delinquency filed explain appellant failed to how still had in juvenile prose- bar would forever right procedural a vested in a statute re court, cution as an adult in district even if pealed almost three before trial. there adjudication, was no conviction or court, The majority failing of this to rec- other action in court. ognize shortcomings opinion, of the be- Following his conviction district court low, warmly has approved embraced and 1978, appellant notice gave appeal. only not result but deficient reason- appeal On Ap- the San Antonio Court of ing Appeals, of the Court of without peals in panel opinion reversed the convic- explanation. additional reasoning This holding tion that the trial court erred in regrettable highly of the view unusual overruling appellant’s pre-trial plea in bar result reached will undoubtedly which now statutory on a based claim spawn post-conviction numerous writs of (not involving of former jeopardy former corpus. habeas acquittal conviction) 30(c), under Article Y.A.P.C., 1973, as amended vigorously I to the majority’s dissent ac- Leg., 1484, 2, p. 544, 1, Sept. tion, explain my and will reasons: Miller reviewing occurred, what has it is (Tex.App. - San important complex history to consider the The Court stated: helpful. of this An case. outline conclude, therefore, pro- “We that the April date Appellant’s of birth. 1957— 30(c) visions of controlled art. at the time April 1974—Date of murder of the trial cause and of this that under offense. its precluded terms the was from State prosecuting appellant convicting April days appel- for or 1974—Two after alleged against him of any offense him in birthday. lant’s peti- State filed juve- tion with the court of Bexar Accordingly, prosecution nile court. County seeking ap- a declaration that an adult of the former violation pellant was a child on the 30(c)_” art. explicit in basis of the murder of Leonard Sella April on or 1974. about Juvenile opinion At first blush the Court of complete diagnostic Court orders a reasoned, Appeals may upon seem well but study, full social evaluation and inves- appel- closer is clear that the examination it tigation appellant order to deter- late court below reached erroneous con- proceed- clusion. mine whether or not criminal ings against should instituted him. 30(c), upon by the relied Court of April 22, Appellant filed motion in expressly Appeals, repealed by was twice 1974— Legislature requesting in 1975 and was not in limine court to set aside the appellant’s trial, diagnostic requiring study. effect at the time of order 1977—State files motion to May motion to transfer March 1974—State’s certify appellant for trial transfer and certify appellant to district court as an adult. for trial as an adult filed. hearing March 1977—Third transfer
May
Appellant’s motion re-
1974—
Court certified and
held.
Juvenile
questing
questioned only
that he be
appellant to the 187th Dis-
transferred
presence
attorney.
of his
Court,
County,
Bexar
to be tried
trict
Hearing
June
held to determine
1974—
for the offense of murder.
as an adult
voluntarily
whether
would
July
Appellant indicted for
comply with the court’s order to sub-
1977—
of Leonard Sella on or about
murder
complete diagnostic
mit
himself
April
study.
July
1978—Court
Civil
hearing held.
August
1974—Transfer
affirms the
court’s certifica
(1)
Juvenile court entered order
waiv-
and transfer order. R.E.M. v.
ing
*4
State,
(Tex.Civ.App.—
613
S.W.2d
(2) certifying appellant
court
for trial
1978), reh.den., ref. n.r.e.
Waco
(3) transferring
as an adult
the case to
14,
August
Hearing
appellant’s
on
a criminal district court of Bexar Coun-
1978—
(former
pleas
prosecution
in bar of
ty.
jeopardy) No. 1 and No. 2. Court over-
30,
May
Appeals
1975—Court of Civil
pleas in
rules such
bar.
12,
August
juve
vacates
1974 order of
15,
August
Appellant
applica-
files
nile trial court for failure of trial court
1978—
corpus
of habeas
in Cause
tion
writ
diagnostic
appel
study
to obtain a
of
in 227th District Court
No. 78-W-263
appel
lant and orders a transfer of
Hearing
alleging illegal restraint.
lant’s case to a criminal district court
offered the
ducted thereon. Evidence
appellant
since
had reached his 18th
pleas
prosecution
on
bar
birthday during appeal. R.E.M. v.
hear-
plus exhibits. Relief denied after
State,
(Tex.Civ.App.—
given
ing.
appeal
Notice of
to Court
1975)
San Antonio
Appeals.
of Criminal
3,
Ap
December
1975—Court of Civil
22,
begins on
August
Jury trial
peals
rehearing
juvenile
on
rules that
1978—
in district court.
murder indictment
court has
to determine
28,
finding
August
Jury verdict
appellant
whether
should
transfer
1978—
appellant guilty of murder returned.
red to a criminal district court and
29,
August
Jury
punish-
assesses
prior
by remanding
modifies its
order
1978—
imprisonment.
ment at life
case to the
court. R.E.M. v.
State,
(Tex.
649-652
imposed.
S.W.2d
1978—Life sentence
October
1975),
den.,
Civ.App.
Antonio
reh.
appeal given.
Notice of
— San
no writ.
panel
April
1979—A
corpus
Appeals
March
1976—Juvenile Court orders a
denies habeas
Criminal
appeal
ruling in Cause
diagnostic study
appellant.
relief in
from
new
opin-
unpublished
78-W-263
No.
hearing
April
1976—Second transfer
(Cause
59,344).
No.
ion
orders transfer
held. Juvenile Court
Appellate
of mur-
May
record
to a criminal district court of
of case
1979—
der
filed Court of Crimi-
conviction
County.
Bexar
61,614.
Appeals as No.
nal
June
1976—Court of Civil
61,614
September
1981—Cause No.
tri
judgment
and remands
reverses
Antonio Court
transferred
San
in the ad
al court for reversible error
Appeals.
inadmissible
evidence.
mission
State,
(Tex.
conviction
September
1982—Murder
R.E.M.
den.,
Ap-
1976),
reh.
reversed
San Antonio Court
Civ.App.
- San
22,1982
prose-
ref.,
peals
September
n.r.e.
cution ordered dismissed.
approach
Miller v.
A new
involving fairness was
(Tex.App.— adopted
S.W.2d
in 1965 when the first discretion
1982).
San Antonio
ary transfer
passed
act was
as an amend
2338-1,
ment
to Article
V.A.C.S.
November
1982—State’s Petition for
Leg., p. 1256,
See
Discretionary
Review filed Court of
State, supra;
White v.
parte Menefee,
Ex
Criminal
No. 961-82.
—Cause
There is no of the Septem- that from 1, 1973, 31, 1973, through ber December “(c) repeal by a statute a code controlling statute was Article 30 as amendment, revision, does not affect an by Legislature. amended the 63rd or reenactment of the question is January whether on legislature which enacted the code. when the new Penal Code became effec- amendment, revision, or reenactment tive, largely repealing the 1925 Penal Code preserved given part effect as including Article which standard then provision the code which revised the stat- 8.07(d) prevailed set forth —that amended, ute so revised or reenacted. 1974 Penal Code or that set forth “(d) If provision of a code conflicts adopting 1973 Act III Title with a legis- statute enacted the same conforming Ar- Code and an amendment to code, lature which enacted the the stat- ticle 30 of the thereto? former ute controls.” conforming It is that after the observed amendment of Article 30 in 1973 1.01 of also observed It is published Family Code Act the article was provides: Act Code Construction pocket part in the cumulative of Vernon’s provides “This Act rules to aid in the Code, 1925, I, p. Annotated Penal at Vol. (and construction codes amendments 12, with the statement: “Text of article pursuant to them enacted to the state’s January effective until 1974.” This statutory program). revision continuing well have on the fact that the been based The rules set out in this Act are not repealed the 1925 Code Penal Code intended to be exclusive but are meant including January Article 30 effective clarify to describe and common situations guide preparation order to Nevertheless, it is that V.T. observed construction of the codes.” *7 Code, (1974), C.A., provides: Penal 1.05 § V.T.C.A., “(a) penal Commentary Practice to The rule that a statute to The apply Code, (1974), that in strictly be construed does not to 8.07 concluded Penal § 3.11(c) this code provisions this code. The of light of of the Code Construction § 8.07(b) applies Act to apepars 1.02. This It is here observed that to "Sec. § 3. by by age “(1) the 60th or a jurisdiction enacted at each code determine preserved prior Legislature part the state’s subsequent law. as of the time of trial which State, 6, Dearing program. continuing statutory v. 151 Tex.Cr.R. revision * * *” Family (Tex.Cr.App. Code "(2) 30(b) age to Article makes the at applies amendment Penal act to the 1974 this entire Since terms, the time of the offense control. very what the is not clear its it by incorporating said Legislature intended V.T.C.A., Code, (Objectives 1.02 of § 4. See Penal 1.05(b). together Surely the two read when § Codes). entire Code and the not inconsistent statutes are apply the 1974 Penal Act would Construction Construction Act 5. It is observed that the Code Legislature. the 63rd Code enacted 5429b-2, (Article V.A.C.S.) part: provides in to Article intoxicating Code amendment li- Act the under influence (first offense) or quor subsequent or 30 controls over 8.07.6 § driving while under influence San Antonio Court of Civil any drug other drug narcotic or of reached the same conclusion as the Prac- degree incapa- him to a which renders Commentary tice R.E.M. (first safely driving or ble a vehicle 1975) (Tex.Civ.App. (Opin- S.W.2d offense); subsequent or Rehearing). ion on motor vehicle “(3) a violation right, If interpretations these then were incorporated ordinance traffic 8.07, Article 30 controlled over and was § state. town this city or in effect at the time of the murder court waives “(b) Unless filing and at the time of the the individual and certifies jurisdiction court of a as may person a prosecution, for criminal murder.7 based said How- convicted of or prosecuted not be ever, expressly Article 30 was twice reaching 17 before committed repealed Leg., p. 64th age except: years of and Acts § “(1) perjury aggravated perjury Sept. eff. § appears had by proof when it that he The latter enactment also amended V.T. sufficient discretion understand C.A., 8.07 to read: § oath; obligation of an nature and Age Affecting 8.07. Criminal “Sec. “(2) penal a violation of statute Responsibility Chapter 302, cognizable under Acts of “(a) prosecuted not be Session, Legislature, Regular the 55th for or of any convicted offense that he amended, except conduct younger commited when than 15 which violates the laws of this state age except: prohibiting driving or while intoxicated intoxicating li- under the influence
“(1) perjury and aggravated perjury (first offense) quor subsequent or or appears proof when it that he had driving while under the influence sufficient discretion to understand the drug drug narcotic or of other oath; obligation nature and of an degree incapa- him to a which renders “(2) penal a violation of a statute (first driving or safely ble of a vehicle cognizable Chapter under Acts offense); subsequent Legislature, Session, Regular the 55th amended, except “(3) a motor conduct a violation of vehicle incorporated of an traffic ordinance which violates the of this laws state in this state. city or town driving prohibiting while intoxicated enactment, However, junction 3.11(c) with Article 30 of the provides said statute position given be differ- the State contends there would three of said 30 is to be effect as code, part provide points it does not that such ent at which would attach. Commentary Perhaps argue controls. if Article 30 was in effect State would 3.11(d) portions meant in its January to include conclusion. the three after 3.05(a) (b) of §Cf. the Code Construction pari are in materia and should same enactment Act. together and read as follows: harmonized court retains "If urges *8 the in its brief that 7. It observed State hearing, adjudication an the and conducts of Title the in the enactment III of subject prosecution at child is not to criminal conforming to which included the amendment alleged peti- any in the time for offense Leg., p. 30 knowledge the tion or for offense within 1, 1973), Sept. was also included eff. there juvenile judge as evidenced of court the 54.02(a)(2) argues 54.02(g). State and § proceedings." anything the in the record of 54.02(a)(2) jeopardy that under attached § construction, urges, State would the Such a adjudica- juvenile an when court conducted the Penal not in conflict with 8.07 1974 § be 54.02(g) hearing, jeopardy that § tion and under pre- argues be State that it cannot Code. The juvenile re- attached when the court decides to Legislature intended an absurdi- sumed that the certify jurisdiction rather than and transfer tain ty. juvenile district If read in con- the to court. 444
“(c) juvenile Unless the court waives tion as adult...” See an also R.E.M. v. jurisdiction State, and the individu- (Tex.Civ.App. 569 S.W.2d 617 certifies prosecution, al criminal person 1978). (Emphasis supplied.) for Waco — who has alleged been ain It is clear from Article 30 and 8.07 that § hearing to have en- they procedural are devices and Article 30 gaged in conduct or conduct interpreted. has been so Procedural stat supervision indicating a need litigation utes control from their effective prosecuted be not or convicted of State, (Tex. date. Neal v. Cr.App. 1966); State, Wilson v. 473 S.W.2d court or any the within 1971); (Tex.Cr.App. State, 532 Granviel v. knowledge the judge court of (Tex.Cr.App. 1976); S.W.2d 552 107 Wade anything evidenced in the record State, 533 (Tex.Cr.App. v. 572 S.W.2d the proceedings. of Legislature may proce change “(d) case, No may, be pending proceedings, dure and punished by death for an offense commit- changing procedure prima applies facie to younger ted while he than years.” was 17 pending proceedings. State, Odenthal v. (Acts 1975, (1927). 743 Tex.Cr.R. S.W. Stat 1, 1975.) Sept. (Emphasis sup- eff. dealing distinguished remedy, utes with plied.) action, right from or cause of are to be July the Thus 1977 when indict- applied passage, to after actions their even August 14, ment was returned and on 1978 though right prior action or cause of arose pre-trial pleas the prosecu- when of bar Republic thereto. Villiers Financial heard, were the standard set said Services, Inc., 602 S.W.2d ref. n.r.e. 8.07(c) long was in effect. Article 30 litigant (Tex.Civ.App. Texarkana repealed. since had been The Court of right procedural remedy. has no vested Appeals reversed on the of basis Article Lines, Merchants Motor Inc. v. Railroad Fast and ordered the indictment dismissed. Nei- Texas, 573 Co mm. S.W.2d repeal ther effect of nor nature (Tex.1978). Article was discussed. Appeals holding The Court erred in R.E.M. v. repealed that the Article 30 controlled and (Tex.Civ.App.1976),the San overruling trial court erred of Article 30 Civil wrote prosecution. plea in bar of This cause adjudication petition here involved: majority not reversed. The is in should appellant’s “It is contention that vigor grievous I with all the error. dissent provision in Penal had ef- Code my at command. depriving
fect of court of appellant transfer dis- to DAVIS, DAVIS, TOM MIL- G. W.C. adult, trict court for trial as an since LER, JJ., join opinion. this provision precluded such Code appellant for
prosecution or conviction of MOTION FOR OPINION ON STATE’S of murder in the ad- the offense PETI- REHEARING ON STATE’S petition previously ju- filed in judication RE- TION DISCRETIONARY FOR venile court. VIEW “Appellant’s contention is without mer- DAVIS, Judge. W.C. provision on which it. The Penal of murder and Appellant convicted more did no than relies imprisonment in Texas life sentenced to plea the nature make available Department Corrections. prose- as a to a double defense re- It does not The San Antonio Court cution in criminal court. concluding that the jurisdic- versed the conviction deprive court *9 overruling appellant’s in appellant prosecu- trial court erred certify to tion adjudged a has been (cid:127)person on No who plea prosecution in based pretrial bar of may be convicted delinquent child under statutory jeopardy claim of former a to alleged petition in the any offense (Ver- ANN., 30(c) Art. TEX.PENAL CODE any delinquent child or adjudge him a 1973, Supp.1973) non as amended juve- knowledge of the the offense within 2, 1484, 544, Leg., p. ch. Sec. effective in by anything judge nile as evidenced 1, 1973). September Miller juvenile proceeding. of the the records (Tex.App. S.W.2d 404 - San 475, Sec. Acts 60th original affirmed On submission this Court added). (emphasis Appeals’ judgment. the Court of ANN., Art. TEX.PENAL CODE In holding of Although reasoning 1925) (Vernon replaced was Sec. 3 correct, a brief Appeals the Court of Code, conforming amendment to Penal analysis helpful here. On of their review 30(c) III of the passed along with Title Art. 19, 1974, original April the State filed an conforming amendment Code. alleging juvenile in the court petition Code, part: in Penal Art. 30 reads to engaged delinquent in appellant had (c) alleged been in person who has alia, that petition alleged, inter duct. adjudication hearing petition inten- April appellant on had “... or engaged delinquent conduct have death of tionally knowingly caused the supervision indicating a need for conduct Sella, shooting said Leonard G. may prosecuted for or convicted not be pistol_” Leonard G. Sella with alleged in the any offense May filed a motion On State offense within court seeking an order from in the same cause knowledge judge court of the certifying and transfer- court anything in the record of evidenced pros- ring appellant to the district court for proceedings. at- ecution as an adult. After several 1973, Leg., p. Sec. Acts tempts certification and transfer was (emphasis add- September re- accomplished and an indictment was ed). alleging the same offense as that turned Legisla- of the During the same session alleged original petition adjudica- Sec- Penal Code was enacted. ture a new delinquent. Pursuant to that tion as a 8.07(d) replaced of the Penal Code new indictment was tried and convict- Art. language of and it reflects the Art. 30 instant case. ed of the offense 1967 amendment. read after the 30 as it 8.07(d) reads: Section pleas jeop- filed of former Appellant two court, ardy adjudged in the trial both of which were has been No who appeal convicted Appellant contended child overruled. overruling erred in his that the trial court offense because, delinquent child adjudge under the him a plea of former knowledge juve- within the provisions former TEX.PENAL CODE by anything (Vernon judge as evidenced ANN., 30(c) Supp.1973), the nile Art. juvenile proceedings. subsequently the record prohibited from State was previously 8.07(d) (Ver- V.T.C.A., him for prosecuting sec. adjudication petition filed in the non Appeals court. The Court of correctly point- As the Court appellant’s conviction. agreed and reversed ed out: was of the Court judgment different double were three ... there legislative history of several on the based regarding juveniles jeopardy standards articles. January 1967 and period between ANN., barred The 1967 enactment TEX.PENAL CODE if an adult juvenile 1925) (Vernon amended Art. Sec. adjudi- had been previously the child as follows: to read *10 cated as a (Tex.Civ. the same mis- R.E.M. v. conduct,.... App.1975) (opinion on rehearing). The Family Code Amendment to Art. changed law, the agree, We cannot dissenting opin- as the bar to adult if there had original suggests, ion on submission that merely previous been a allegation ju- implicate statutes which important such venile court of the same misconduct. matters whether or not a can be The Legislature, enacting same See. prosecuted in particular purely case is Code, 8.07 of the new Penal then revert- procedural such that the state of the law at prior adjudi- ed to the 1967 standard the time of trial controls. barring prosecution. cation as adult reviewing After the State’s conten Miller, supra, at 407. rehearing tion on we conclude our that Thus, an inconsistency existed be opinion on original submission was correct. 30(c), conforming tween Art. amend by legis We are constrained so hold ment, Code, 8.07(d) to the old Penal and Sec. lative problems arising in 1973 and dis of the new Penal Code. issue cussed above. Accordingly, State’s Mo instant case is which law controls. Rehearing denied. Appeals The Court based its deter- Art. mination that 30 controls the instant ONION, P.J., G. and TOM. DAVIS and case TEX.REV.CIV.STAT.ANN. Art. JJ., McCORMICK, dissent. 5429b-2, Act, Texas Code Construction Sec. WHITE, J., participating. not 3.11(c) reads, which repeal of by a statute a code does amendment, revision, not affect an
reenactment the statute same
Legislature which enacted the code. The
amendment, revision, or reenactment given
preserved part effect as provision
code which revised the statute amended, so revised reenacted. Ricardo Cortez LOPEZ 3.11(d) We believe Sec. Code supports Act Construction also the Court Texas, Appellee. The STATE of 3.11(d) Appeals’ Sec. judgment. reads: No. 509-83. any provision If of code conflicts with a Legislature statute enacted the same Texas, Appeals Court Criminal code, which enacted En Banc. trols. April implicat- Both rules of construction were Legislature ed when the 63rd amended Art. Penal Code and also enacted a
30 of old Penal which omitted the amend-
new Code sug- both rules
ment. such situation held,
gest, that the as the Court Art. 30 controls.
amendment to
Further, Commentary Practice (1974)
V.T.C.A., 8.07 also Sec. 3.11(c)of light of Sec.
concluded that Code Construction Act to Art. controls over Sec.
Amendment drawn conclusion was
8.07. Civil
the San Antonio