Court Opinion

ID: 9827875
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 17:54:12.683661+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:45:43.243452
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
We have decided that we were in error in holding that appellee could not seek affirmative relief because he did not perfect his appeal. Rule 420, T.R.C.P., provides that if an appellee desires to complain of any ruling or action of the trial court, his brief in regard to such matters shall follow substantially the form of the brief for appellant. This provision undoubtedly authorizes an appellee to assign error by way of cross-points. The only limitation upon this right is that an ap-pellee who has not himself taken an appeal may make cross-points so long as they affect the interest of the appellant or bear upon matters presented in the appeal. 3 Tex.Jur. p. 873, Sec. 609, p. 1029, Sec. 727. Under the former court rules the right of an appellee to file cross-assignments of error was provided for by District Court Rule 101 (159 S.W. XI). This right is in effect brought forward by said Rule 420.
There are any number of decisions construing the rights of an appellee under the provisions of Rule 101, and there is no reason why the same construction should not be given to the provisions of New Rule 420.
In Duren v. Houston & T. C. Ry. Co., 86 Tex. 287, 24 S.W. 258, 259, Justice Gaines, speaking for the Supreme Court, said: “Where one party appeals, the other may file cross assignments of error, and procure a reversal of the judgment in his favor, provided he shows error to his prejudice. Caperton v. Wanslow, 18 Tex. 125; Carroll v. Carroll, 20 Tex. 731; [St. Louis, Arkansas & Texas] Railway Co. v. Prather, 75 Tex. 53, 12 S.W. 969. The report of the case last cited does npt fully disclose its history; but we have examined the record, and find that the defendants below excepted to the judgment, and gave notice of appeal, and filed an appeal bond and assignments of error. The plaintiffs excepted to the judgment, and failed either to give notice of appeal or to file bond, but they assigned errors. The appellants having failetj to file a brief, their assignments were disregarded. The case was considered on the cross assignments, and the judgment was reversed in favor of the appellees.”
This case has never been overruled and has been continuously cited with approval. Ward v. Scarborough, Tex.Com.App., 236 S.W. 441; Cain v. Bonner, 108 Tex. 399, 194 S.W. 1098, 3 A.L.R. 874; O’Neil v. O’Neil, Tex.Civ.App., 77 S.W.2d 554.
In Sinz v. Meredith, Tex.Civ.App., 116 S.W.2d .464, 465, the Court said: “And as soon as the appeal was perfected by appellants, the right of appellees, royalty owners, to cross-assign error to that portion of the judgment adverse to them became absolute.”
The only authority we have found to the contrary is Davis v. Bowie, Tex.Civ.App., 247 S.W. 308, 309, in which the court said: “In view of the disposition made of the case it is unnecessary to consider the cross-assignments of the appellee. Not having appealed from the judgment rendered, he is not entitled to a reversal on these cross-assignments, even if they should, be sustained.”
No authorities are cited in support of this holding and it is out of line with the other authorities.
In the case at bar appellee excepted to the findings of the trial court, filed a motion for a new trial, excepted to the judgment and gave notice of appeal. He did not filé an appeal bond, but did file cross-points contending that the evidence was insufficient to show gross negligence and that therefore no judgment should have -been rendered against him. We sustain this contention.
The judgment heretofore entered by us affirming the judgment will be set aside, the judgment of the trial court will be reversed and judgment here rendered that appellant take nothing. Appellants’ mo- ■ tion for a rehearing will be overruled and that of appellee granted.