Court Opinion

ID: 9834188
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 23:22:46.642432+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:44:12.637524
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
We add the following observations to what is said in the original opinion.
“In every novation there are four essential prerequisites: (1) A previous valid obligation ; (2) the agreement of all the parties to the new contract; (3) the extinguishment of the old contract; and (4) the validity of the new one. It constitutes a new contractual relation and is based upon a new contract by all parties interested. 29 Cyc. 1130.” Kirkup v. Anaconda Amusement Co., 59 Mont. 469, 197 P. 1005, 1011, 17 A. L. R. 451.
“The plea of novation is an affirmative defense in the nature of a release or discharge and is new matter which must be specially pleaded; however, there is authority to the effect that the issue may also be raised under a general denial. It is essential that a plea or -answer allege all the essential elements of a novation, which must clearly and definitely appear by direct averment or by necessary inference from the facts averred.” 46 C. J. 624, § 69.
“In order to effect a novation there must be a clear and definite intention on the part of all concerned that such is the purpose-of the agreement, for it is a well settled principle that novation is never to be presumed.” 20 R. O. D. 366, § 8.
“In order to constitute a novation such as will release the obligation of the original debtor to his creditor it is necessary that there should be a new and valid contract which, as agreed between the parties, extinguishes the assumed existing contract-or obligation. Hence it must. appear that the creditor unconditionally released the original debtor and accepted the third person in his stead; and where the parties count on the old contract as subsisting it certainly has not been novated. The discharge of the old debt -must be contemporaneous with and re-' suit from the consummation of an arrangement with the new debtor.” 20 R. O. D. 371, §14.
It is well settled that the burden is on the party asserting a novation to plead and prove same.
One may accept money or performance of a contract from a third party without releasing the original obligor. Harrington-Wi*294ard Co. v. Blomstrom Mfg. Co., 166 Mich. 276, 131 N. W. 559, 563.
“Intent of the creditor to look to the new debtor is not in itself a release of the old debtor, unless clear from all the circumstances that it was so intended, and the creditor may have a remedy against both old and new debtor.” City National Bank et al. v. Fuller (C. C. A.) 52 F.(2d) 870, 875, 79 A. L. R. 71.
It is contended here that the pleadings on their face by showing the delivery of a deed to the third party at the request of the original debtor, shows a novation. It has been otherwise expressly decided. Linbrook Realty Co. v. Rogers, 158 Va. 181, 163 S. E. 346, 84 A. L. R. 1039.
Of the elements of a novation mentioned above, it is clear to us that the pleadings in this case do not show upon their face a clear intention to extinguish the obligation of the original debtor and release her. It is claimed that a new contract was made which amounted to a release of appellant, but no such new contract amounting to a novation is shown either in the pleadings of appellee or appellant. A careful reconsideration of this record has completely convinced us that our original holding was correct.
Finally we observe that while out of a sense of Justice to the appellant we have considered the points argued by her, it plainly appears from a consideration of the record that nothing except fundamental error is properly presented for review. She bases the error of the court in refusing to charge on novation on the following assignment of error :
“The Court erred in refusing to submit to the' jury the special issues Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 and requested by defendant in cross-action, which issues are made a part of this assignment according to their consecutive numbers.”
Some of these appear to present unrelated matters. That this assignment is multifarious and not entitled to consideration has been pointedly and ofttimes decided. 3 Tex. Jur., page 856; Phoenix Furniture Co. v. Kay (Tex. Civ. App.) 10 S.W.(2d) 422; Myers v. Walker (Tex. Civ. App.) 8 S.W.(2d) 550; Potomac Ins. Co. v. Easley (Tex. Civ. App.) 293 S. W. 346.
Complaint appears in the brief of certain defects in the pleading and also of the court’s charge. If any exception as to either was ever called to the court’s attention and acted on, the transcript fails to show it. Apparently no exceptions were taken and preserved to the court’s action in respect to either. It is not necessary to cite authority for the plain proposition that in such a case nothing is presented for review except fundamental error.
The motion for rehearing is overruled.