Court Opinion

ID: 9830280
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 20:03:21.748103+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:17.570926
License: Public Domain

On Appellants’ Motion for Rehearing.
Appellant files an insistent motion for rehearing and especially attacks the conclusions of this court on original hearing that, in the absence of any claim of surprise and motion for continuance on the part of defendant below, the trial court did not commit reversible error in allowing J. H. H. Berry to be made a party plaintiff. He cites the case of Reagan v. Copeland, 78 Tex. 551, 14 S. W. 1031, in which the Supreme Court said:
“If it be conceded that under another statute the United States marshal may cause the signers of indemnity bonds to be made parties defendants, as sheriffs and their deputies and constables may be (Sayles’ Tex. Civil Statutes, art. 4525a), which we do not now decide, it must be admitted that the right to do so is subject to the requirement that it must be done ‘before the case is called for trial.’ After that it is too late to bring in new parties if objection i'g made. The fact alone that it is not apparent that any delay will be caused thereby is not sufficient ground for disregarding an express provision of the statute on the subject.”
In the cited case, Copeland was suing Reagan as United States marshal for the Eastern district of Texas, alleging that said marshal had wrongfully converted property to his use belonging to plaintiff, under and by virtue of a void writ. The new parties were sought to be made parties defendant, and included principals and sureties upon indemnity bonds executed in favor of Reagan as said marshal. If this were done, new issues would be raised, new pleadings required by the plaintiff to meet the pleadings of the defendant, and necessarily delay would be required. The language used in the cited case apparently was stronger than the holding of the courts in other cases would support.
In Roberson v. McIlhenny, 59 Tex. 615, it was held that the name of one of a partnership being omitted from the petition as a party plaintiff could be cured by a trial amendment, without the necessity of a continuance or further service of process. See Garrett v. Muller & Co., 37 Tex. 589; Tousey v. Butler, 9 Tex. 525; Laughlin v. Tips, 8 Tex. Civ. App. 649, 28 S. W. 551 — all of which cases hold that amendment to pleadings adding the name of another member of the firm does not set up a new cause of action.
In Northern Texas Traction Co. v. Mullins, 44 Tex. Civ. App. 566, 99 S. W. 433, by Chief Justice Conner of this court, it was held that it was within the discretion of the court to permit a petition to be amended where it will not occasion surprise to the other party. A writ of error was denied in this case.
Moreover it does not fully appear that J. H. H. Berry, the father of Hansford Berry, was an active or general partner. The evidence simply shows that Hansford had gotten some money from his father and put it *186in the business. The father’s name did not appear in the business, and apparently he had nothing to do with the management of it. But we think enough has been said to justify the overruling of the motion for rehearing. .
Motion for rehearing overruled.