Case Name: TEXAS GLASS & PAINT CO. v. DARNELL LUMBER CORP. et al.
Court: Texas Courts of Civil Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1912-04-27
Citations: 185 S.W. 965
Docket Number: No. 7395
Parties: TEXAS GLASS & PAINT CO. v. DARNELL LUMBER CORP. et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 185
Pages: 965–968

Head Matter:
TEXAS GLASS & PAINT CO. v. DARNELL LUMBER CORP. et al.
(No. 7395.)
(Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Ft. Worth.
April 27, 1912.
On Rehearing, April 8, 1916.
Rehearing Denied May 6, 1916.)
1. Appeal and Error <S&wkey;512 — Record—Jurisdiction- — 'Transcript.
The finding of the trial judge on appeal from a justice of the peace that the suit was filed and tried in the justice court, and an appeal duly perfected to the county court, does not supply the omission of the justice court’s transcript, and is not a sufficient showing that the county court acquired appellate jurisdiction.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. § 2326; Dec. Dig. <&wkey;512.]
2. Appeal and Eeeoe <&wkey;635(2) — Record— Correction — Conflict of Rules.
Under Court of Civil Appeals rule 1 (142 S. W. x), providing that on receipt of the transcript by the clerk of the court he shall determine whether jurisdiction of the court is shown, and, if not, notify the attorney for the appellant, who shall have a reasonable time in which to amend the record, and rule 22, as amended (142 S. W. xii), requiring the appellant to prepare the transcript in accordance with the rules, the appellant should be given an opportunity to perfect the record before ruling that the county court had no jurisdiction of the appeal.
[Ed. Note. — For other eases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. §§ 2776, 2829; Dec. Dig. <&wkey; 635(2).]
3. Appeal and Error <&wkey;501 (2)-Record-Exceptions.
In an action by the buyer and consignee of two pieces of plate glass against the seller and shipper and the carrier, where the carrier’s exception to the allegations in the petition as to price paid for the glass shipped in place of that damaged on the ground that it was not a proper measure of damages as to it was sustained, the Court of Civil Appeals, in the absence of an exception by the appellant, the seller, noted of record and presented in an assignment to the sustaining of the exception, could not consider the correctness of the court’s ruling.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. § 2301; Dec. Dig. &wkey;>501(2)J
4. Pleading <&wkey;387 — Conformity to Pleadings.
A party asking affirmative relief must lay a predicate for the relief sought in the pleadings, and, to entitle him to such relief, the proof must sustain the allegations.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Pleading, Cent. Dig. §§ 1300-1304; Dee. Dig. &wkey;3S7.]
5. Carriers <&wkey; 136 — Action for Damages— Tlea Over in Directed Verdict.
In an action by the buyer and consignee of two pieces of plate glass against the seller and the carrier to recover amount paid for a third shipment after one of the pieces had been broken, where the shipper’s pleading over against the carrier did not allege any negligence of the carrier and there was no proof thereof in the agreed statement of facts, instructing a verdict against the shipper and in favor of the carrier was proper.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Carriers, Cent. Dig. §§ 478, 596-598; Dec. Dig. &wkey;136.]
6. Sales <&wkey;413 — Breach of Contract — Action for Damages — Pleading.
In such action, where the buyer’s pleadings alleged the sale of the glass to be delivered at its place of business for a stipulated sum, which allegations were not denied, and where the agreed statement of facts showed a purchase as alleged, and that, when the box was opened, one of the pieces of glass was broken and worthless and was refused, and that upon notification by the buyer the seller shipped another piece of glass at an invoice price, which the buyer paid, the buyer, whose action was predicated upon the seller’s contract for safe delivery, would be entitled to recover the contract price, without reference to the seller’s negligence in packing the glass for shipment.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Sales, Cent. Dig. §§ 1166-1169; Dec. Dig. &wkey;413.)
7. Sales <&wkey;420 — Breach of Contract — Action for Damages — Pleading — Directed Verdict.
In such action, where the buyer’s allegation that the glass was broken in shipment before it reached the buyer’s place of business was not denied, and there was no allegation or proof that such breakage occurred subsequent to its arrival, a directed verdict for the buyer against .the seller was proper.
[Ed. Note. — Por other cases, see Sales, Cent. Dig. § 1202; Dee. Dig. &wkey;>420.]
Appeal from Tarrant County Court; Charles T. Prewitt, Judge.
Action by the Darnell Lumber Corporation against the Texas Glass & Paint Company and the Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fé Railway Company, with plea by the Texas Glass & Paint Company for judgment over against the Railway Company. Judgment for plaintiff against the Texas Glass & Paint Company, and for defendant Railway Company against the plaintiff .and its codefendant, and the latter appeals.
Judgment affirmed.
Alexander, Power & Ridgway, of Ft. Worth, for appellant. Turner & Bradley, L. M. Levy, Lee & Lomax, and W. D. Smith, all of Ft. Worth, for appellees.

Opinion:
SPEER, J.
This is an appeal from a judgment of the county court of Tarrant county for civil cases in an action in which the sum of $136.03 is in controversy. There is nothing in the transcript to show that the county court of Tarrant county for civil cases ever acquired jurisdiction over the cause and its judgment therefore is reversed, and the cause remanded for another trial. There is in the transcript an agreed statement o£ the ease and the facts proved, in which agreement it is stipulated that the suit originated in the justice's court, precinct No. 1, Tarrant county, and resulted in a judgment in favor of the plaintiff against the defendant, and that the defendant railway company appealed to the county court of Tarrant county for civil cases, filed its appeal bond, as required by law, and that the transcript of the judgment from the justice's court was duly filed in said county court, but the transcript contains no other evidence of these facts, and for the reasons given in American Soda Fountain Co. v. Mason, 55 Tex. Civ. App. 532, 119 S. W. 714, these recitations are insufficient. The statute (Rev. St. 1S95, art. 1014) provides that in all cases of appeal or writ of error to the Courts of Civil Appeals the trial shall be on a statement of facts, or agreed statement of the pleadings and proof, etc. But it is nowhere provided that such agreement may take the place of those jurisdictional facts which are required by other provisions of the statute to be shown in the transcript; the "agreed statement" contemplates only the "pleadings and proof."
Reversed and remanded. See Ware v. Clark, 58 Tex. Civ. App. 356, 125 S. W. 618.
<&wkey;For other cases see same topic and KEY-NIÍ MISER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes