Court Opinion

ID: 3936318
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-07-06 10:00:48.743333+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:12.996765
License: Public Domain

By the first assignment of error the contention is made that the petition of the plaintiff does not support a judgment in his favor against the Collin County National Bank. The amended petition of the plaintiff, filed July 18, 1913, and on which the case was tried, alleges, as material to be stated, that the Collin County National Bank received and accepted drafts with bills of lading attached, and indorsed in blank by the plaintiff, from the First National Bank of Wortham, together with the plaintiff's written instructions that the bills of lading should be delivered to the Southwestern Grain Company only upon the immediate payment of the drafts by the grain company, and that the Collin County National Bank, in violation of the instructions, and without authority, permitted the bills of lading to be detached from the drafts and attached to different drafts drawn by the grain company on A. Steen of Breaux Bridge, La., and as so attached forwarded the bills of lading to a bank at Breaux Bridge, thereby placing the apparent legal title to the cars of oats in the grain company and enabling and causing creditors of the grain company at Breaux Bridge to attach and sell the oats as the property of the grain company. The facts found by the court are in accordance with the allegations. If the Collin County National Bank by its independent and unauthorized acts, as alleged and proven, caused the loss or conversion of the oats, it would be liable to the plaintiff as for conversion for the damages occasioned through the unauthorized acts done by it. The assignment is therefore overruled.
The second and third assignments presented the contention that the cause of action in favor of the plaintiff was barred by limitation of two years. And by the fourth and fifth assignments the same contention is made by appellant in respect to the crossaction of the First National Bank of Wortham. The point made is that the default on the part of the Collin County National Bank occurred, under the facts, either on July 31, 1905, or on August 10, 1905, and that the plaintiff did not set up conversion until the amended petition of July 18, 1913, and that the First National Bank of Wortham did not file its cross-action until September 16, 1907. The original petition of the plaintiff was filed on the 8th day of August, 1906, and averred the facts concerning the acts and conduct of the Collin County National Bank in respect to detaching the bills of lading and the loss occasioned thereby. The court sustained certain special exceptions directed to the allegations, and an amended petition was then filed making more specific the allegations of the original petition. The original petition was admittedly filed within time to stop the running of limitation; and as the averments therein were sufficient, as against a general demurrer, to set up default or conversion, and asked for damages therefor, the plaintiff's cause of action could not be said to be barred by the statute of two years' limitation. And if it could be said that the First National Bank of Wortham was seeking on its crossaction in its own right and name to recover independently for the loss of the oats against the Collin County National Bank, then it would not be doubted that appellant's contention that the cross-action was barred should be sustained. But the First National Bank of Wortham is not seeking a recovery on any independent cause of action, but by the cross-action is seeking recovery only against the Collin County National Bank as its agent, for whatever sum it may have to pay on the plaintiff's cause of action against it as principal. And in this view of the cross-action of the First National Bank of Wortham, limitation would not run in favor of the Collin County National Bank until the First National Bank of Wortham had paid the judgment against it. City of San Antonio v. Talerico, 98 Tex. 151, 81 S.W. 518.
The sixth and seventh assignments are overruled as constituting no reversible error. See Houston v. Blythe, 60 Tex. 506.
The measure of plaintiff's damage prima facie was the face of the drafts, which represented to appellant's knowledge the contract amount payable by the grain company for the oats. And there is no pretense in the evidence that the amount payable by the drafts was incorrect. As a fact the court entered judgment for the market value as found by him, which was less than the face of the drafts. The eighth assignment is overruled, as showing no injury and as not warranting reversal.
The ninth and tenth assignments are overruled.
The judgment is affirmed. *Page 168