Court Opinion

ID: 9770476
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 16:06:12.012361+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:31:17.678897
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
Appellants herein have filed a motion for rehearing in which they say that we “erred in severing the claim for indemnity by Joaquin Cantu and Texas & New Orleans Railroad Company over and against Arthur Fred Kipfer, the driver of the automobile involved in this collision, from the action between Manuel Casas and Joaquin Cantu and the Railroad Company.”
The jury refused to find that any act or omission of Arthur Fred Kipfer was a proximate cause of the collision. In the brief no complaint was made relating to the trial of this portion of the case. The error which caused a reversal Of the judgment was the receiving of improper testimony admitted over the objection of Kipper’s attorney. If the judgment against Kipfer were reversed it would be because of a mistake made by an opposing attorney in offering improper testimony. Kipfer had no control over such attorney, who was attempting to gain judgment against him, and he would' have no control over him upon a subsequent trial, but, nevertheless, he would conceivably be required to litigate repeatedly because ’ of the mistakes of opposing counsel. As we view it, Kipfer has won his case “fair and square,” and this should end the' matter insofar, as he is concerned.
If it appears to a Court of Civil Appeals that the error held to be reversible affects. sL' part only of the matter in' controversy, and the issues are severable, the judgment may be reversed and a new trial ordered as to that part only which is affected by the error. Rule 434, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. The test of severability is whether or not the issues in the case' are indivisible, or so closely related that a jury should in all fairness have the entire case as to all original parties before it in reaching its verdict. Fisher v. Coastal Transport Co., 149 Tex. 224, 230 S.W.2d 522; Simmons v. Wilson, Tex.Civ.App., 216 S.W.2d 847. The issues not finally resolved in this litigation, because of the receiving of improper testimony, relate solely to the controversy between Casas, on one hand, and Cantu and the railroad company, on the other. Can these issues be fairly tried without the presence of the Kipfers as parties to the suit? We think that they can. As pointed out in the original opinion, although liability to Casas was established against the appellants, said *178appellants wholly failed to establish their claim over against the Kipfers. They should not have another “bite at the cherry,” so to speak.
Appellants’ motion for rehearing is overruled.