Court Opinion

ID: 9831932
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 21:29:05.701547+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:39.509530
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing.
Appellee complains of our conclusions of fact. This criticism is without merit. We adopted from his .brief his own statement of the nature and result of this suit, and the facts upon which we based our opinion, except in matters that appeared without controversy, were taken from his statement.
Appellant asks us to reverse and render judgment in its favor rather than reverse and remand, advancing the proposition that “a case should not be reversed in order to give the losing party an opportunity to strengthen his case upon another trial,” citing Harris v. Shafer, 86 Tex. 314, 23 S. W. 979, 24 S. W. 263, and Simmons v. Dickson, 110 Tex. 230, 213 S. W. 612, 218 S. W. 365. These authorities announce appellant’s proposition, but not in support of the facts of this appeal. These authorities simply hold that, where one loses his case in the trial court, the appellate court will not reverse the judgment of the trial court, when properly rendered upon the evidence adduced, to give the losing party' an opportunity to introduce testimony not offered upon the trial. Where the judgment of the successful party in the trial court is reversed as being without' support, the case should be remanded for a new trial, unless it can be said, from the record, with reasonable certainty, that appel-lee will not be able to strengthen his ease on another trial. This was the reason for the reversal of the Peterson Case cited in the original opinion, and the proposition was directly announced by us in Houston E. & W. T. Railway Co. v. McHowell (Tex. Civ. App.) 278 S. W. 258. It is the established practicé in this case.
Both parties complain of the order of the trial court .taxing the costs of the lower court, and on rehearing ask us to determine the merits of their respective propositions. Appellee instituted this suit in justice court and had appellant duly cited. When the case was called for trial both parties appeared and announced ready for trial. After making a proper statement of their respective pleadings, appellee declined to offer any testimony whatever in support of his demand, whereupon the justice of the peace rendered judgment in favor of appellant. Appellee then prosecuted his appeal to the county court, where, upon trial regularly had, judgment was in his favor for the amount of his demand, together with the costs of both courts. Upon motion of appellant to retax the costs, the county court adjudged the costs of the justice court against appellee and the costs of the county court against appellant. Appellant insists that judgment should have been in its favor for the costs of both courts, and appellee makes the like contention. While article 2065, R. C. S., provides that the successful party shall recover his costs, article 2066 provides that, for good cause, the costs may be adjudged otherwise. As a matter of law, upon facts identical with the facts before us, article 2066 has been construed as entitling appellant to the costs of the county court. Judgment should have been in appellant’s favor of the costs of the county court, and error was committed in adjudging these costs against it. Texas & P. Railway Co. v. Wheeler, 99 Tex. 428, 90 S. W. 482; Houston & T. C. Railway Co. v. King (Tex. Civ. App.) 160 S. W. 647; Cage v. King (Tex. Civ. App.) 159 S. W. 174; Missouri, K. & T. Railway Co. v. Milliron, 53 Tex. Civ. App. 325, 115 S. W. 655. Additional authorities can be found by following these citations through Shepard’s Southwestern Citations.
On authority of these cases, even if it were an issue of discretion, under article 2066, the trial court did not err in taxing the justice court costs against appellee. We think, though, as a matter of law, appellant was entitled to the costs of both lower courts. The reasons for this proposition are clearly stated in the cases cited.
Except as indicated, the motions for rehearing of both parties are in all things overruled.