Case Name: GARNER v. JAMISON et al.
Court: Texas Courts of Civil Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1913-10-18
Citations: 162 S.W. 940
Docket Number: 
Parties: GARNER v. JAMISON et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 162
Pages: 940–943

Head Matter:
GARNER v. JAMISON et al.
(Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Dallas.
Oct. 18, 1913.
On Motion for Rehearing, Jan. 17, 1914.)
1. Pasties (§ 96 ) — Misjoinder or Pasties Plaintiff — Waives.
Under Rev. Civ. St. 1911, art. 1902, authorizing a defendant to plead as many several matters, whether of law or fact, as he shall think necessary and which may be pertinent to the cause, provided he files them all at the same time “and in due order of pleading,” where defendants filed an answer to the merits without filing any exceptions setting up a misjoinder of parties plaintiff, their objection to such mis-joinder was waived, and their exception thereafter filed in an amended answer should not have been sustained, as the proper practice is to raise the question of misjoinder of parties and causes of action when it appears from the face of the pleadings by demurrer, and the objection must be taken and determined in limine.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Parties, Cent, Dig. §§ 167-177; Dec. Dig. § 96. ]
On Motion for Rehearing.
2. Appeal and Eeros (§ 407 ) — Citation in Ebeor — Service.
Under the statute authorizing service on the president, secretary, or treasurer of a domestic corporation, or upon the local agent representing it in the county in which suit is brought, a citation in error was properly served on the general manager of its business, who gave the orders with respect to its business, and who lived in the county in which suit was brought; he being its local agent representing it in such county.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. §§ 2120, 2128-2132; Dec. Dig. § 407. ]
3. Appeal and Error (§ 390 ) — Appeal Bond —Amendment.
Under the express provisions of the statute, an appellate court may allow an appeal bond defective in form or substance to be amended by filing a new bond; and hence the action of the court in allowing the filing of a new bond was not unauthorized on the ground that the original bond was a nullity.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. §§ 2077-2084, 2088; Dec. Dig. § 390. ]
4. Parties (§ 92 ) — Misjoinder oe Parties Plaintiff — Waiver.
Under rule 24 for district courts (142 S. W. xix), providing that all dilatory pleas and all motions and exceptions relating to a suit pending which do not go to the merits of the case shall be tried the first term at which the attention of the court shall be called thereto, unless passed by agreement of the parties with the consent of the court, assuming that the misjoinder of parties plaintiff was raised by a general demurrer where no special exception was filed, the objection was waived where the court’s attention was not called thereto at any time, and an exception filed after several intervening terms of court should not have been sustained, especially where it was not filed until after plaintiff’s cause of action was barred by limitations.
[Ed. Note. — For other eases, see Parties, Cent. Dig. §§ 150-152; Dec. Dig. § 92. ]
Error from District Court, Dallas County; E. B. Muse, Judge.
Action by G. M. Garner and J. D. Jamison against Campbell Russell and others. To review the ruling of the court in sustaining exceptions to the petition and certain other interlocutory rulings, plaintiff Garner brings error.
Reversed and remanded.
E. G. Senter, of Dallas, for plaintiff in error. W. L. Crawford and J. C. Muse, both of Dallas, for defendants in error.
For other cases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dec. 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:
TALBOT, J.
This action was filed on the 19th day of April, 1906, by J. D. Jamison and G. M. Garner, plaintiffs, against Campbell Russell, C. S. Barrett, W. S. Miller, O. P. Pyle, and A. H. Belo & Co., a corporation, defendants, each plaintiff praying for $10,000 actual damages and $10,000 exemplary damages against each of the defendants for an alleged libel. The defendant A. H. Belo & Co., on the 29th day of November, 1907, and the other defendants, on the 24th day of November, 1908, filed amended answers, in which, among other things, they and each of them excepted specially to the petition of the plaintiffs upon the ground that there was a misjoinder of parties plaintiff. The plaintiffs excepted to and resisted the pleas of misjoinder of parties plaintiff upon the ground that all of the defendants had waived a misjoinder, if any, by pleading to the merits of the cause and permitting several terms of the court to pass after so doing, without excepting to the misjoinder and by waiting to present the exceptions or pleas of mis-joinder until such a period of time had elapsed as to cause the action to be barred by limitation, if it should be dismissed. The court sustained the exceptions setting up a misjoinder, and the plaintiffs then, because of the action of the court, requested a severance of the cause, and that each of the plaintiffs should be permitted to docket his cause as a separate action, which application was denied by the court. The attorney for the plaintiffs then announced that, acting under the rule of the court, and because the court would not permit the cause to go to trial and would not permit a severance, he would take a nonsuit on behalf of plaintiff, Garner, and did so, and then and there gave notice of appeal from the action and ruling of the court to the Court of Civil Appeals on behalf of said plaintiff. Afterwards a motion was made on behalf of the plaintiff, Gamer, to reinstate his cause of action as a separate suit upon the docket of the court, which prayer was denied by the court. Plaintiff, Garner, gave notice of appeal to the Court of Civil Appeals from the action of the trial court, and brings the case to this court by writ of error.
The several rulings of the court mentioned are assigned as error, but it is only necessary for the purposes of this appeal for us to determine whether or not the trial court erred in sustaining the special exceptions of the appellees to the petition of piaintiffs asserting a misjoinder of parties plaintiff. The decision of the question does not turn upon whether or not there was in fact such misjoinder, but whether, if there was such misjoinder, it had been waived. The proper practice in this state is to raise the question of misjoinder of parties and causes of action when the misjoinder appears from the face of the pleadings, by demurrer, and the objection must be taken and determined in limine. Our statute gives the defendant the right or privilege to plead, in his answer, "as many several matters, whether of law or fact, as he shall think necessary for his defense, and which may be pertinent to the cause," provided he files them all at the same time and in due order of pleading. Article 1902, Revised Stats. 1911. The proviso in this statute was not complied with in this case. The exceptions of the defendants to the petition of the plaintiffs were filed long after their general denial, and was not therefore in the due order of pleading. As has been stated, this suit was filed on the 19th day of April, 1906, and the answers of the defendants A. H. Belo & Co., Campbell Russell, and O. P. Pyle, and O. S. Barrett and W. S. Miller, consisting of a general demurrer and general denial, were filed, respectively, on the 28th day of April, 1906, June 6, 1906, and September 26, 1906. Thereafter, on the 29th day of November, 1907, A. H. Belo & Co., and on the 24th day of November, 1908, the other defendants, filed amended answers, in which for the first time they excepted to the petition of plaintiffs upon the ground of misjoinder of plaintiffs. Haying answered to the merits of plaintiffs' case before filing their exceptions setting up a misjoinder of parties plaintiff, defendants waived the misjoinder, if any, and the court erred in sustaining said exceptions. Hays v. Perkins, 22 Tex. Civ. App. 198, 54 S. W. 1071; Moore v. Waco Building Ass'n, 19 Tex. Civ. App. 68, 45 S. W. 974; Wallace v. First Nat. Bank, 95 Tex. 103, 65 S. W. 180; Connor v. Hawkins, 64 Tex. 544; Howard v. Britton, 71 Tex. 286, 9 S. W. 73; Railway Co. v. Railway Co., 83 Tex. 509, 18 S. W. 956.
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and cause remanded.