Court Opinion

ID: 9831527
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 21:09:43.473662+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:35.502521
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
In 'his motion for rehearing, appellee for the first time insists that this court should render judgment in his favor over against the American Express Company for the same amount which this court has rendered judgment against appellee in favor of the appellant Fidelity & Casualty Company of New York. It is insisted in substance that since the jury found that the counter signatures of appellee upon the checks were forgeries, the express company was not legally liable to pay the same to the parties holding them, and that therefore the express company sustained no'loss by reason of haying paid the amounts of the checks to appellee within the meaning of the condition of the bond executed by appellee to the express company, and which condition is shown in the opinion on original hearing. In that connection, the contention is miajde that the express company had no right to demand of appellee or the surety company reimbursement for the amounts paid out to the holders of the checks when presented, and that therefore appellee should recover over against the express company any- judgment recovered against him by appellant, Fidelity & Casualty Company.
As pointed out in the original opinion, the trial court expressly adjudged that the appellee was not entitled to recover any amount over against the. express company. The appellee did not appeal from that judgment which was rendered on his plea over against the express company, nor did he file any cross-assignment of error either in the trial court or in this, court. Under such circumstances, the appellee is in no position to assert that contention, and the same is overruled for that reason. National Bank of Cleburne v. Carper, 28 Tex. Civ. App. 334, 67 S. W. 188; Anderson v. Silliman, 92 Tex. 560, 50 S. W. 576; Farris v. Gilder (Tex. Civ. App.) 115 S. W. 645; Stewart v. Tolar (Tex. Civ. App.) 250 S. W. 274.
Furthermore, as pointed out in the opinion on original hearing, contemporaneously with the execution of the indemnity bond-, in controversy, appellee executed a separate-written agreement with the express company by the terms of which he specifically agreed to hold the express company harmless for the payment of the checks to any one presenting them for payment and asserting any right, title, or interest in them.
We have again considered the issues, as-between appellee and appellant, and are convinced that the conclusions reached -by us on original hearing are correct.
Accordingly the motion for rehearing is-overruled.