Case Name: O'BRIEN v. VON LIENEN
Court: Texas Courts of Civil Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1912-02-17
Citations: 149 S.W. 723
Docket Number: 
Parties: O’BRIEN v. VON LIENEN.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 149
Pages: 723–727

Head Matter:
O’BRIEN v. VON LIENEN.
(Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Amarillo.
Feb. 17, 1912.
Motion for Rehearing, April 13, 1912.)
1. Appeal and Erbor (§ 80 )—Decisions Review able—Final Judgment — Failure to Dispose op Issues.
A judgment which does not dispose of the issues raised by the pleadings is not final, and is not appealable.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. §§ 429, 432, 433, 450, 456, 457, 494-509; Dec. Dig. § 80. ]
Motion for Rehearing.
2. Appeal and Ebbob (§ 80 )—Decisions Review able—Final Judgment — Disposition op Issues.
Where a buyer suing to recover an advance payment for cattle bought, and for damages from the seller’s failure to furnish the cattle contracted for, alleged fraud by the seller as to the condition of the cattle at the time of sale, and the seller denied the fraud, pleaded a tender of performance, and a breach by the buyer in failing to accept the cattle, and alleged that the advance payment was due as liquidated damages for the buyer’s breach, and averred a decline in the market value of tlie cattle between the date on wbicb tbe buyer breached the contract and that on which the seller was able to sell, and sought a recovery of the damages sustained in case it was found that the advance payment had not been paid as liquidated damages, a judguent for the buyer for the advance payment rendered on a verdict on instructions submitting the right to recover the partial payment, but not submitting the right to recover damages claimed by either party, was final and appeal-able.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. §§ 429, 432, 433, 450, 456, 457, 494-509; Dec. Dig. § 80. ]
3. Sales (§ 440 ) — Remedies of Buyer — Contracts — Breach—Actions—Evidence.
Where in an action by a buyer of cattle to recover an advance payment, and for damages resulting from the seller’s misrepresentation as to the condition of the cattle, there was evidence that cattle to be shipped for stockers and feeders were less valuable if diseased than if not diseased, the admission of testimony of the buyer that he had bought the cattle for shipment to the market as stock-ers and feeders, was not erroneous as against the objection that the pleadings did not warrant its admission.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Sales, Cent. Dig. §§ 1261-1276; Dec. Dig. § 440. ]
4. Witnesses (§ 392 ) — Impeachment — Proof of Contradictory Statements.
A witness testifying that cattle represented by the seller to be sound were afflicted with scabbies on the day of the tender of delivery to the buyer may be impeached by proof that the witness had executed and delivered a certificate that the cattle were free from disease on the day of the tender.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Witnesses, Cent. Dig. §§ 1249-1251, 1257; Dec. Dig. § 392. ]'
5. Sales (§ 440 ) — Remedies of Buyer — Breach of Contract — Action—Evidence-Admissibility.
Where, in an action for damages for a seller’s failure to deliver sound cattle as contracted for, the evidence showed that a disease, alleged by the buyer to have afflicted the cattle at the time of the tender of delivery, would make its appearance on cattle within less than two months after exposure, the testimony as to the diseased condition of the cattle some two or three months after the tender of delivery was inadmissible to show the condition of the cattle at the time of the tender.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Sales, Cent. Dig. §§ 1261-1276; Dec. Dig. § 440. ]
6. Sales (§ 440 ) — Remedies of Buyer — Breach of Contract — Action—Evidence-Admissibility.
The testimony of a shipper of other cattle which had run with the cattle in controversy that he had inspected such other cattle, and that they were free from disease, and were passed as clean, was properly excluded, because not throwing any light on the actual condition of the cattle at the time of sale or tender.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Sales, Cent. Dig. §§ 1261-1276; Dec. Dig. § 440. ]
7. Evidence (§ 317 ) — Hearsay Evidence.
The testimony of the seller of cattle that on the day he tendered them to the buyer he and the buyer went to the depot, and that the depot agent told them that the cattle had been examined by the cattle inspector, and were found to be clean, and that the agent would allow them to be shipped, was hearsay and inadmissible, in so far as it tended to show what the agent had done and said.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Evidence, Cent. Dig. §§ 11747-1192; Dec. Dig. § 317. ]
8. Appeal and Error (§ 738 ) — Assignments of Error. •
Where part of the testimony of a witness testifying by deposition is admissible and part inadmissible, an assignment complaining of the exclusion of all of the testimony will be overruled.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Appeal and, Error, Cent. Dig. § 3033; Dec. Dig. § 738. ]
9. Evidence (§ 537 ) — Opinion Evidence-Competency of Witness.
One who has been buying and selling cattle for about nine years, who has had considerable experience in observing and inspecting cattle afflicted with scabbies, and who believes that he can tell by inspection whether cattle are so afflicted, and who states that he saw cattle in controversy while in pens on a specified day, is competent to give his opinion as to whether the cattle were on that day free from such disease.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Evidence, Cent. Dig. § 2345; Dec. Dig. § 537. ]
10. Trial (§ 203 ) — Issues—Instructions.
Where the trial court did not in its instructions submit an issue raised by the pleadings and evidence, it was error to refuse a special charge submitting such issue.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Trial, Cent. Dig. §§ 477-479; Dec. Dig. § 203. ]
11. Trial t§ 253 ) — Instructions—Ignoring Issues.
In an action by a buyer of cattle for the recovery of the advance payment made, and for damages caused by the seller’s fraudulent representations as to the condition of the cattle at the time of sale, an instruction that, if the buyer inspected the cattle and purchased them on his own judgment, the verdict must be for defendant, was properly refused, because eliminating the issue of whether the buyer relied on the seller’s representations.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Trial, Cent. Dig. §§ 613-623; Dec. Dig. § 253. ]
12. Sales (§ 38 ) — Validity—Misrepresentations.
Where a breach of contract by a seller of cattle is relied on, and the buyer shows that the seller merely expressed an opinion as to the character of the cattle, the buyer may not recover, unless he alleges and proves that the seller knowingly and willfully misrepresented his opinion.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Sales, Cent. Dig. §§ 65-77, 85; Dec. Dig. § 38. ]
Appeal from District Court, Deaf Smith County; D. B. Hill, Judge.
Action by Henry Von Lienen against G. W. O’Brien. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.
Reversed and remanded.
Knight & Slaton, of Hereford, and Cooper, Merrill & Bumpkin, of Amarillo, for appellant. W. H. Russell and Carl Gilliland, both of Hereford, for appellee.
For other cases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dee. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key No. Series & Rep’r Indexes .
For other cases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key No. Series & Rep’r Indexes

Opinion:
GRAHAM, C. J.
This is an appeal attempted from a judgment for $1,098.30 rendered in the district court of Deaf Smith county on May 19, 1911, in favor of appel-lee, who was plaintiff below, and against appellant, who was defendant below.
The record shows that the case went to trial on pleadings substantially as follows:
Appellee sought a recovery against appellant for $1,000, alleged to have been paid as a part of the purchase price for certain cattle purchased by appellee from appellant, and for $500 damages, alleged to have been sustained by appellee as a result of appellant having failed to furnish cattle as per agreement; appellee's pleadings being in effect to cancel the contract for sale of the cattle on allegations of fraud committed by appellent as to the condition of the cattle at the time of the sale, appellee having declined to accept them when tendered by appellent. Appellant replied, denying the allegations of fraud, set up the contract, and pleaded a tender of performance on his part and a breach of the contract by appellee in failing and refusing to accept the cattle, and alleged that the $1,000 was paid as liquidated damages in the event that appellee breached the contract, and on that ground claimed right to retain the $1,000. In a separate paragraph of appellant's pleading he alleged a decline in the market value of the cattle between the date on which appellee breached the contract, and that on which he was able to sell the cattle, aggregating $2,100, and sought to recover his damages in the event it be found that the $1,000 had not been paid to him as liquidated damages. In a supplemental petition appellee excepted to appellant's cross-action or plea in intervention, which éxceptions were overruled by the court. The case was tried before a jury, and submitted to it by the court in his charge on the theory presented in appellee's petition alone as to his right to recover the $1,000; the right to recover the $500 item not having been submitted, nor were the issues raised in appellant's pleadings submitted to the jury. The judgment of the court on the verdict of the jury in no way disposed of any other issue in the case except to award the $1,000, with interest to appellee against appellant.
From the foregoing statement it will be seen that issues were raised by the pleadings that were not disposed of in any way by the judgment of the court, and, as we view the matter, the judgment rendered and attempted to be appealed from is therefore not a final judgment, and this court, having appellate jurisdiction only, is not warranted in entertaining the appeal in this case and disposing of the issues sought to be raised on their merit. Jacob Linn and Wife v. C. Arambould, 55 Tex. 611; T. & P. Ry. Co. v. Ft. Worth St. Ry. Co. et al., 75 Tex. 82, 12 S. W. 977; Riddle v. Bearden, 36 Tex. Civ. App. 97, 80 S. W. 1061.
Because the judgment attempted to be appealed from in this case is not a final one and therefore no jurisdiction exists in this court to dispose of the appeal upon its merits, the appeal will be dismissed, with the suggestion that the trial court proceed as was indicated by the Supreme Court in the case of Linn against Arambould, supra.
The appeal will therefore be dismissed, and it is so ordered.