and judgments. Id. at 151 n. 2. In light of our discussion of the probative value of docket entries, the bank’s motion to supplement and the bank’s motion for rehearing both are overruled. 1 . The pertinent docket entry states, “2 22 91— Application for turnover order. DENIED /s/ HRT.” 2 . Hamilton relied on the following statutes and court rule: 1925 Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat., § 1, arts. 1899, 1902, at 526, 527 (since repealed and codified at Tex.Gov’t Code Ann. § 51.303, as amended); 1925 Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat., § 1, art. 1918, at 529 (since repealed and promulgated at Tex. R.Civ.P.Ann. 20); 1892 Rule for the District and County Courts 65, 84 Tex. 717 (since repealed and promulgated at Tex.R.Civ.P.Ann. 304). 3 . Contra Charles L. Hardtke, Inc. v. Katz, 813 S.W.2d 548, 550 (Tex.App.1991, no writ) (<HOLDING>). Without expressing an opinion on whether Katz
holding that the oral rendition of an order in open court does not constitute entry of that order holding that the rendition of a judgment is the act of the court in pronouncing the judgment accompanied by a notation on the trial docket and any later document setting out in greater detail the judgment merely confirms the docket entry holding that plaintiffs were entitled to vacate final order of dismissal as void when they did not receive the motion for dismissal or notice of the hearing on the order until after the dismissal was entered holding that oral rendition of judgment supported by the courts docket sheet was insufficient express specific written order is required holding that a signed docket entry can qualify as an order setting aside a written dismissal order and citing knox v long 152 tex 291 257 sw2d 289 292 1953 judges delivery to the clerk of order or signed written memorandum of dismissal on docket sheet dismissing cause for want of prosecution constituted rendition of judgment as effectively as if dismissal was pronounced orally in open court overruled on other grounds by jackson v hernandez 155 tex 249 285 sw2d 184 1955