Case Name: DAVIS, Agent, v. MORRIS
Court: Texas Courts of Civil Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1923-03-28
Citations: 257 S.W. 328
Docket Number: No. 6573
Parties: DAVIS, Agent, v. MORRIS.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 257
Pages: 328–333

Head Matter:
DAVIS, Agent, v. MORRIS.
(No. 6573.)
(Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Austin.
March 28, 1923.
On Motion for Rehearing, June 27, 1923. On Appellee’s Motion for Rehearing, Oct. 10, 1923. On Appellant’s Second Motion for Rehearing, etc., Nov. 7,1923.)
1. Appeal and error <&wkey;742(l) — Propositions in brief must specify things done or omitted, not general principles.
The appellate court will not consider propositions in appellant’s brief merely stating abstract principles and not complaining of anything done or omitted.
2. Trial <&wkey;352(5)— Special issue requiring answers to immaterial as well as material issues properly refused.
. In an action for damages to cattle from negligence in transit, where plaintiff alleged ownership either personally or as administrator of community property of self and deceased wife and defendant claimed the ownership was in a partnership, the other members of which should be made parties plaintiff, a requested special issue to determine plaintiff’s interest at time of shipment, at commencement of suit, and at time of trial, was erroneous, as plaintiff’s interest at commencement of suit and time of trial was immaterial.
On Motion for Rehearing.
3. Trial <&wkey;351 (2) — Defective special issue as to ownership of cattle damaged in transit must be corrected and given.
In an action for damages to cattle in transit on defendant’s railroad where the evidence of ownership' of the cattle is conflicting, an instruction requiring submission of the point, though containing immaterial questions, should he corrected and given or the point covered by other instructions; the statute authorizing a presumption that the court found the issue in support of the judgment where no request is made not applying.
On Appellee’s Motion for Rehearing.
4. Appeal and error &wkey;>l 178(6) — Case remanded for new trial for one issue should he affirmed as to issues properly decided.
Where, on appeal by a railroad from a judgment for damages to shipment of cattle, the case must be reversed and remanded for a new trial solely for failure to properly submit fhe question of plaintiff’s ownership of the cattle at the time of shipment, the-properly decided issues as to damages, liability, etc., should b.e affirmed, and, instead of remanding generally, the case should be remanded for a finding only as to ownership.
On Appellant’s Second Motion for Rehearing and for Reformation of Judgment.
5. Appeal and error &wkey;»832 (2) — Judgment reciting allowance of interest as damages, where jury found damages specially, but not interest, held .“fundamental error," reviewable on rehearing, though question not previously raised.
“Fundamental error,” being one apparent on the face of the record, is shown where judgment recites that interest is allowed as damages in a suit for recovery of damages for injury to live stock received in shipment, in the absence of a finding of the jury awarding such interest as part of the damages, since their verdict constitutes the sole basis for the judgment, and the question is reviewable on a second motion for rehearing, though not previously raised. *
TEd. Note. — For other definitions, see Words and Phrases, First and Second Series, Fundamental Error.]
6. Damages <&wkey;69 — Interest not recoverable as such in suit for damages to live stock shipment.
In suits ■ for damages for injuries to live stock, received in shipment, interest is not recoverable as interest, but as damages.
7. Judgment <&wkey;>256(l) — Verdict sole basis, where issues of fact are submitted to jury.
Where the issues of fact in a case are submitted; the verdict constitutes the sole basis for judgment.
Appeal from District Court, Coleman County J. O. Woodward, Judge.
Action by J. P. Morris against James C. Davis, Agent. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with directions.
Snodgrass, & Dibrell, of Coleman, and Terry, Cavin & Mills and O. B. Wigley, all of Galveston, for appellant.
■ Critz & Woodward, of Coleman, for ap-pellee.

Opinion:
KEY, C. J.
We quote as follows from ap-pellee's brief:
"Plaintiff's suit, as stated in his first amended original petition, was by J.'P. Morris, plaintiff, against James C. Davis, Agent, designated by the President, to recover for damages occasioned to cattle and for cattle killed, shipped from Hugo, Okl., to Fort Worth, Tex., on or about April 15, 1922, in two shipments, one in the name of Bob Foster, and the other in the name of Geo. B. McCanless, employees of plaintiff, to Fort Worth, Tex.;, it being alleged that' said cattle were delivered át Bort Worth 29, killed and seriously injured, as alleged in said' petition, and that the remaining 324 head were afterwards reshipped , from Fort Worth to Brownwood on April 19, 1919, in the name of said G. B. McCanless,' consignor, consigned to J. P. Morris, consignee, and thát 1 head of said' cattle was killed between Fort Worth and Brownwood, and that said cattle were consigned from Brownwood to Coleman, consigned to J. P. Morris, conSigtíee', and were delivered at Coleman April 21, 1919. Plaintiff alleged the following injuries and damages to said cattle while in the hands of the government, and of Walker D. Hines, Director General, to wit:
"14 killed before delivery at Fort Worth to the consignee, Campbell & Rosson Commission Company, of the value of $75 each;
"15 damaged before delivery at Fort Worth in the sum of $40 each;
"1 killed between Fort Worth and Brown-wood of the value of $75; and
"6 delivered at' Coleman in 'such damaged Condition that they afterwards died of such injuries, each of the value of $75.
"In plaintiff's trial amendment filed on the date of the trial and on the date of the filing of defendant's amended answer, plaintiff alleged that at the time of the matters and facts alleged in plaintiff's petition, and before and. ever since said time,- plaintiff was and still is the administrator of the community estate of himself and his deceased wife, Martha M. Morris, duly appointed as such by the county court of Coleman county, Tex., and as such community administrator owned and controlled the cattle in controversy, and brings this suit for the benefit of said estate.
"Defendant filed no sworn pleadings and did not deny the allegations, in said trial amendment under oath or otherwise, but answered by a general exception, general denial, and special plea, that the cattle were injured by reason of their starved and weakened condition. '
"Plaintiff answered by first supplemental petition to defendant's said .answer, consisting of exception to paragraph' 5 thereof and general denial of the allegations therein contained."
The case was submitted to a jury upon special issues, which, with the answers of the jury thereto, read as follows:
"(1) Were any of the cattle in question killed en' route, between Hugo and Coleman, or injured in such way that they died as the result of such injuries, as alleged in plaintiff's petition? Answer this question yes or no." Answer: "Yes."
"(2) How many of the cattle were killed or injured in such way as to die from result of such injuries?" Answer: "21."
"If you have answered question No. 1, 'Yes,' then you will answer the following question:
"(3) Was the death of such cattle and the injuries causing such death, if any, the result of the negligence of the said Walker D. Hines, Director General, or his agents and servants? Answer this question yes or no." Answer: "Yes."
"If you have answered question No. 3 in the negative, then you need not answer the following question:
"If you have answered the foregoing questions 1 and 2, 'Yes,' then you will answer the following question:
"(4) What would have been the reasonable market value at Coleman, Tex., at the time of arrival of the shipment in controversy of said cattle so killed or injured, if any, if same had been delivered alive and uninjured by any negligence of said carrier?" Answer: "$60 per head."
"(5) Were any of said cattle, other than those referred to in interrogatory No. 1, injured while en route between Hugo and Coleman by the negligence, if any, of the said Walker D. Hines, Director General, or his agents and servants, as alleged in plaintiff's petition? Answer this question yes or no." Answer: "Yes."
"If you answer the above question 'No,' then you need not answer any of the other questions herein propounded, but if you answer the foregoing question, 'Yes,' then you will answer the following question:
"(6) What was the difference in the market value at Coleman, Tex., of said cattle so injured in the condition in which they were delivered and the condition in which they should have been delivered; in answering this question you will answer with reference to all cattle so injured, if any injured, whether they were delivered at Port Worth, or elsewhere?" Answer: "$300 on injured cattle, being $20 per head on 15 head of cattle."
"Special issue No. 1 requested by defendant: Did Walker D. Hines, Director General, through his employees or agents, exercise ordinary care in the handling of the shipment in controversy in course of transportation from Hugo, Okl., to Port Worth, Tex.?" Answer: "No."
"Special issue No. 2 requested by defendant: Did Walker D. Hines, Director General, through his agents and employees, exercise ordinary care in the handling of the shipment in controversy in course of transportation from Port Worth, Tex., to Brownwood, Tex. ?" Answer: "Yes."
"Special issue No. 3 requested by defendant: Did Walker D. Hines, Director General, through his agents or employees, exercise ordinary care in the handling of the shipment in controversy in course of transportation from Brownwood, Tex., to Coleman, Tex.?" Answer: "Yes."
"Special issue No. 8 requested by defendant: Was the loss and injury to the shipment of cattle in controversy proximately the result of the weak condition of the cattle at the time of shipment?" Answer: "No."
The court also gave a special charge re quested by the defendant, defining the term "negligence." Upon the answers of the jury, the court rendered judgment for the plaintiff for $1,796.60; and the defendant has appealed.
Opinion.
Appellant's brief contains 50 printed pages and cites 31 decisions. Appellee's brief contains 31 typewritten pages, and cites about 50 cases and several statutes and text-books. It is needless to say that if this court were to take the time to carefully read all the authorities cited,' other business of equal importance would have to be neglected, or a decision in this case delayed for many months. However, we have not found it necessary to pursue that course, because while appellant's brief contains 21 propositions upon which the appeal is predicated, none of them presents any new or difficult question; and therefore, in this opinion, but few of them will be discussed. In fact, some of them do not comply with the rule of the Supreme Court which requires an appellant to set forth, in the first part of his brief, propositions containing the grounds upon which he relies for a reversal. This rule does not authorize the submission of abstract propositions of law, but signifies that the appellant shall specify something that was done or left undone which justifies a reversal of the case.
The second, third, fourth, fourteenth, and fifteenth propositions in appellant's brief are merely abstract and do not complain of anything done or omitted in the trial court; and therefore they will not be considered. Several of the other assignments complain of the action of the court in admitting or excluding testimony; and while they have been given due consideration, our conclusion is that no error was committed in that respect.
The sixteenth assignment presents the contention that regardless of the administration proceedings formerly had on the estate of Martha M. Morris, the other members of the firm of J. P. Morris Land, Cattle & Loan Company were necessary parties to the suit. Appellant did not ask to have the case postponed, and the parties referred to made parties to the suit; and the only instruction requested by him relating to the ownership of property was designated "Defendant's Special Issue No. 6," and reads as follows:
"What interest did J. P. Morris own in the shipment of cattle in controversy at the time of the shipment, and at the time of the insti tution of suit, and what interest does he own at the present time?"
That charge was properly refused because it would have required the jury to make three answers: One, as to what interest the plaintiff owned in the shipment of cattle at the time of the shipment; another, what interest he owned at the time of the institution of the suit; and a third, what interest he owned at the time of the trial. The two last questions were immaterial, and therefore the charge was properly refused.
According to the plaintiff's testimony, the cattle belonged either to him or to the. community estate of himself and his deceased wife; and the alleged firm of Morris Land, Cattle & Loan Company was a fiction, and was not in existence at the time of the shipment in controversy. It may be conceded that there was testimony to the contrary tending to show that such partnership existed, and that the cattle did not belong entirely either to the plaintiff or to himself and the estate of his deceased wife; but as the charge referred to was properly ref used, and appellant did not ask a correct charge submitting to the jury the question of the ownership of the cattle at the time of the shipment in question, and as there was testimony tending to support the judgment rendered by the court under the statute, it will be presumed that the trial court made a finding in support of the judgment.
Some other questions are presented in appellant's brief, and have been duly considered, but as, in our opinion, they point out no error, they are decided against appellant; and the judgment is. affirmed.
' Affirmed.
other cases see same topic and KEY-N UMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indesea
©=»For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBJ3R in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes