Court Opinion

ID: 9446584
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 21:58:46.844804+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:30:42.349686
License: Public Domain

HUTCHESON, Chief Judge
(dissenting).
From the standpoint of the amount really involved, this is an appeal in a picayune case, and if it were not for the instructions as to, and the award of exemplary damages in direct contradiction of the law in Texas, I should merely note my dissent. When, however, as is the case here, there is absolutely no evidence which under Texas law would support the charge or the verdict in that respect, I cannot in justice to the law keep silent on the reasons for dissenting,
These briefly stated are that the case of Panola Motor Co. v. Corbin, Tex.Civ.App., 253 S.W.2d 688, 690, mis-cited by appellee as the sole authority for her claim that, if there was a conversion of the car, the credit company would be liable for exemplary damages, held just to the contrary. While upholding the judgment for actual damages, the court re-versed it as to the award of exemplary damages and thus stated the Texas rule:
, Punitive or exemplary damages af recoverable only after a showing of aggravated circumstances of mallce’ fraud OT 8T0SS negligence.
in support it cites the leading and authoritative Supreme Court opinion in Bennett v. Howard, 141 Tex. 101, 170 S. W.2d 709, in which the controlling Texas caSes are collected and analyzed,
., . , „ Tiie evidence m this case was wholly devoid of proof of such facts. It showed beyond question that the company had nothing to gain, and gained nothing, by the foreclosure except freedom from the trials and tribulations connected with handling and keeping up with collections on the paper. The contract clearly provided :
“If Customer defaults on any obligation under this mortgage, or if the holder shall consider the indebtedness or the car insecure, the full balance shall without notice beeome due forthwith * * * and holder may without notice or demand for performance or legal process, enter any premises where the car may be found, take possession of it, * * ”
*750While under the evidence in this case it seems to me very doubtful that a case was made out for actual damages, the defendant did not move for a verdict on this ground, and under the precedents it is not, in my opinion, entitled to make the claim. As to the exemplary damages, however, by its exceptions to the charge, its point was made and saved. I, therefore, dissent from the affirmance of the judgment for exemplary damages.
Rehearing denied: HUTCHESON, Chief Judge, dissenting.