Court Opinion

ID: 9648771
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 14:34:37.507451+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:12:05.367545
License: Public Domain

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
PHILLIPS, Justice.
Appellees Lashly and Mitchell call this Court’s attention to the fact that appellant has made serious charges against them in his First Amended Original Petition and in the two affidavits described in our opinion.
These appellees further point out to the Court that the appellant refused to give his-deposition in connection with such charges' or to be cross examined concerning them. It is true that at the time appellees sought to take appellant’s deposition, he refused.
Appellees further contend that while a careful reader of our opinion would discern that we are only stating and restating charges that have been made against ap-pellees from the pleadings and ex parte affidavits of appellant and that such charges are merely allegations rather than proven facts, a cursory reading of the opinion might lead one to believe that this Court has stated the charges as though they are true.
We do not intend to give this impression.
This is an appeal from a proceeding that never progressed past the summary judgment stage in the Trial Court. Appellant has yet to make his case.
We do believe, however, that appellant has presented enough summary judgment evidence to entitle him to a trial on his allegations of fraud.
Appellees contend that inasmuch as this Court holds that appellant ratified his contract with appellees, appellant has become bound by certain notes and judgments resulting from the contract, that this Court should have affirmed the Trial Court granting appellees’ (defendants and cross-plaintiffs below) cross motion for summary judgment and entering judgment thereon. Blythe v. Speake, 23 Tex. 429; Payton v. City of Big Springs, Tex.Civ.App., 157 S. W.2d 975, no writ history.
We hold that appellees are correct in their contention and we grant the appellees’ motion to this extent and now affirm the action of the Trial Court in granting summary judgment on appellees’ cross motion for summary judgment.
- Costs for this suit shall be apportioned equally between appellant and appellees herein.
The remaining points raised by the motions filed are hereby overruled.
Reversed and remanded in part and affirmed in part.