Court Opinion

ID: 9828625
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 18:34:21.6055+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:51.121387
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
[9] Appellees, in their motion for rehearing, complain that this court had no jurisdiction to reverse the judgment in so far as it disposed oi the issues against the American National Insurance Company in favor of the Mudges. The reason urged by appellees is that the American National Insurance Company did not appeal from the judgment. We followed the procedure expressly authorized by the Supreme Court in the case of Thompson v. Kelley, 100 Tex. 536, 101 S. W. 1074. In that case the question was certified to the Supreme Court and the answer, through Associate Justice Williams, was that, even though some of the parties did not appeal, yet the appeal brought up the entire case, and brought all the parties before the appellate court in such way as to give jurisdiction to render any judgment to which the appellants may show themselves to be entitled.
In the present case, the notes were held by the American National Insurance Company merely as collateral security. Closner & Sprague, two of the appellants, were the owners of the notes. These notes by' the judgment of the trial court were canceled, and the amount thereof was applied as a partial payment on the amount of the judgment rendered against Closner & Sprague in favor of the Mudges on the action for deceit. Since there should have been no judgment against appellants for deceit, the notes should not have been canceled. That, under these circumstances, this appellate court has the jurisdiction to reverse the judgment against the American National Insurance Company, in accordance with the decision of the Supreme Court above mentioned, is fully supported by the following decisions: Reeves v. McCracken, 103 Tex. 416, 128 S. W. 895; Tynberg v. Cohen, 76 Tex. 409, 13 S. W. 315; Mosler Safe Co. v. Atascosa County, 184 S. W. 324.
We have carefully reconsidered our original opinion, in the light of the motion for rehearing, but believe a correct disposition has been made of the ease. The motion for finding of additional facts and to correct our finding of other facts has all been carefully considered, and the conclusion reached that we have stated the material facts correctly, though much of the testimony proving those facts has been properly omitted.
The motion for rehearing and the motion for additional findings of fact are overruled.