Court Opinion

ID: 9827678
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 17:45:44.811739+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:34.422016
License: Public Domain

' On Motion for Rehearing.
Appellees have filed a motion for rehearing and request that, instead of remanding this case, it “be reversed and a proper judgment rendered by this court,” and the appellant presents his reply thereto and therein “requests this court to reconsider their judgment reversing’ and remanding this case; and now reverse and render judgment denying intervener any recovery and granting appellant judgment for the amount due on this note, interest, and attorney’s fees, and the amount o.f principal and- interest to which he is entitled on account of having paid ap-pellees’ land taxes.” Intervener files no motion.
There is no complaint by either party as to any question passfed upon or ruling made by this court in the disposition of this case, except that both parties demand the rendition of the judgment here rather than that it be returned for another trial; neither party having complained of the findings of the jury, except that the court below should not have submitted the issues submitted, but they accept .the facts found as conclusive, and complain that the trial court improperly submitted certain issues which were not material and entered an erroneous judgment thereon.
[6] The ■ same difficulty, almost, presents itself now, as before, as to what judgment should be entered. As both parties accept the facts found and upon them request that the judgment be here rendered, we will therefore set aside that part of the judgment remanding the ease so as to grant a rehearing to both parties as requested by them, and will here reform and render judgment. As it is conceded by both parties that there is no question raised or dispute made about the homestead rights of appellees, the judgment therefore will be that the appellees’ right, possession, and title be quieted in them and they are adjudged to recover their homestead, being lot 8 and a part of lot 9 in block 1 of Kennedy’s addition to Fort Worth, Tarrant county, Tex., and be quieted in their title and possession therein, and appellant take nothing therein; that appellant be quieted in the right, title, and possession of all the other land sued for or in controversy in this suit, and as to that the appellees take nothing.
Now, for the purpose of making clear the basis upon which we adjudge the personal judgment in favor of appellees against appellant, we restate the facts stated in the opinion, as follows:
“Appellant is entitled to recover, as principal, interest, and attorney’s fees due on the $2,820 notes, the sum of $6,065.32, and the further sum of $1,214.92, as taxes paid on said property, as decreed in the former judgment, and being a total of $7,280.24; that intervener Capps recover of appellant the sum of $1,249.-50, which, when paid by appellant, should be charged back against appellees, Jones and wife.
“On, the 20th day of December, 1912, appel-lees owned in fee simple, and delivered to appellant, a total of 230 acres of farm lands reasonably worth the sum of $23,000, which was then incumbered (outside of the Capps debt, which is above provided for) for the total sum of $5,900, all of which was thereafter disposed of by appellant, and the proceeds converted to his own use and benefit.
“Deducting the sum of $5,900 from the value of the land, to wit, $23,000, leaves a balance due appellees from appellant the sum of $17,100.
“Now, take the amount of appellant’s lien against the city property (appellees’ homestead), to wit, $7,280.24, plus the intervener’s (Capps’) debt, $1,249.50, making a total of the sum of $8,529.74, which, if taken from the sum of $17,100, the amount found to be due appel-lees from appellant on their cross-action, would leave the sum of $6,570.26 due appellees, after a full settlement between all the parties.”
The personal judgment therefore rendered here in favor of appellees against appellant is, as stated, for the sum of $6,570.26, with interest from the date of the judgment. This judgment, however, includes the sum of recovery of intervener Capps for the sum of $1,249.50, which recovery shall be for his use and benefit, and if paid direct to him by appellant shall be credited on said judgment.
The judgment of the trial court is therefore reversed .and here rendered as herein-before -set forth.