Court Opinion

ID: 9829366
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 19:15:28.129302+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:00.425386
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
On motion for rehearing, appellee points out that in a supplemental finding of fact the trial court found that appellant had waived his mortgage lien in favor of appel-lee’s landlord lien. We find such supplemental finding of fact amongst the papers of the case, but it has never been officially filed, nor has there been any motion made requesting this court to consider such finding. It seems to bear date of the date this case was submitted on oral argument at Dallas. There is nothing in the record to indicate how the supplemental finding came to be amongst the papers. However, appellant attacks this finding only on the ground that there is no pleading by appellee to support a judgment rendered on the basis of waiver. We find this to be true; and, of course the judgment must be reversed under the well-settled rule that a judgment not based upon sufficient pleadings or not in accordance with and supported by pleadings is fundamentally erroneous. Largent v. Ethridge (Tex. Civ. App.) 13 S.W.(2d) 974; Hines v. Walker (Tex. Civ. App.) 225 S. W. 837 (writ of error refused); 3 Tex. Jur. § 584. But, since this matter has been called to our attention, we think the case should be reversed and remanded instead of reversed and rendered as formerly, in accordance with the rule announced in Camden Fire Ins. Co. v. Yarbrough (Tex. Com. App.) 215 S. W. 842, 844, as follows:
“Where, upon reversal of a case, it séems probable that the ends of justice may be better subserved by remanding than by rendering judgment, the former course should be pursued, notwithstanding it is apparent that a full consideration of the case necessitates that the pleadings be amended. Buzard v. Bank, 67 Tex. 83, 2 S. W. 54, 60 Am. Rep. 7.”
Since we are reversing and remanding the case for another trial, we overrule appellant’s plea in abatement that the sole and exclusive jurisdiction of the matters and things in controversy here were being administered in the federal court at Dallas, sitting in bankruptcy matters, the defendant Grady Emerson having been adjudged and declared to be a bankrupt by said court The state court having obtained personal jurisdiction over all claimants to the property in controversy, and the federal court not having issued an order restraining the court from further proceeding in the case, the state court could proceed to judgment. City Nat. Bank v. Lummus Cotton Gin Sales Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 297 S. W. 563.
The motion is granted in part, and in part overruled, in accordance with this opinion.
Motion granted in part, and in part overruled.