Court Opinion

ID: 9827501
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 17:36:24.586237+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:24:57.253647
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
 It is urged in the motion for rehearing that the only testimony showing that the material was furnished for building the railroad was the hearsay statement of witness R. B. Goode, and that hearsay evidence is inadmissible to establish said fact, citing *384Southern Surety Co. v. Nalle & Co. (Tex. Com. App.) 242 S. W. 197. The case cited is not as to the probative force of hearsay testimony admitted without objection, but as to the.binding effect of statements made by a person who had been acting as agent of the surety company, but who, at the time he made the statements quoted, the Commission of Appeals hdld was not so acting, and that therefore his former principal could not be bound thereby. Hearsay evidence admitted without objection is not without probative force. Gray v. Fussell, 48 Tex. Civ. App. 261, 106 S. W. 454, citing Wigmore on Evidence; Daniel v. Harvin, 10 Tex. Civ. App. 439, 31 S. W. 421; W. U. Tel. Co. v. Hirsch (Tex. Civ. App.) 84 S. W. 394; Harvey v. Comegys (Tex. Civ. App.) 233 S. W. 601. But we do not think the fact that the material was so used is dependent entirely on hearsay evidence. In the first place, the record shows that the lumber, principally railroad ties, was sold to Hamon & Kell at a time when they were building the Wichita Falls, Ranger & Fort Worth Railway. Later said railway company assumed the payment of the balance due on the debt. Letters from Frank Ketch and Frank Kell show that fact, as well as the testimony of Kell himself, and a copy of the resolution of assumption and the testimony of H. A. Coomer, auditor of Hamon & Kell and of the railroad company. We think the evidence is ample. to sustain 'that conclusion.
It is urged that in the instant case our conclusions are in conflict with the holding of the Court of Civil Appeals of the Fifth District in Gulf Pipe Line Co. v. Lasater et al., 193 S. W. 773, 779. If such conflict exists, the appellant here can appeal by writ of error to the Supreme Court. We are not certain that any conflict exists, but, if so, the appellant has his remedy. Hence the motiop for rehearing and also the motion to certify are overruled.