Court Opinion

ID: 9768900
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 13:55:12.621064+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:30:48.946803
License: Public Domain

*92On Rehearing
As we stated in our original opinion, until the release of February 28, 1958 is set aside, that instrument stands as a bar against appellee’s claim based on alleged earlier fraudulent sale to him of corporation stock. We further held that the record shows no adequate grounds for setting aside the release. Therefore it really becomes immaterial to the outcome of this appeal whether Special Issue No. 7, relating to the earlier alleged fraud, was properly submitted or whether it was subject to the objection that it was multifarious, as we held. However, in view of the possibility of another trial of this case we believe it well for us to discuss the matter further.
Appellee asserts that the issue as submitted is not multifarious. We do not agree with appellee. The issue as framed inquires whether Hugh Martin (1) made a false representation of a past fact, (2) or of an existing fact, or (3) made a false promise in regard to some act in the future, (4) 'as a material inducement to appellee to purchase the stock, (5) but for which promise appellee would not have purchased the stock.
Appellee relies on the case of Rick, et al. v. Farrell, Tex.Civ.App., 266 S.W. 522. Special Issue No. 7 and its accompanying instructions in this case are almost identical as to form with the issues and instructions in the cited case.
Nevertheless we cannot accept the case as authority for the proper submission of Issue No. 7 in our case in the face of objection that it is multifarious. Examination of the record in Rick v. Farrell, supra, discloses that no objection was made to the issues as there submitted on the ground that they were multifarious. The question was not presented to the court, so was not passed on in the opinion. That being so, the case does not support appellee’s contention that the 'issue No. 7 as submitted in our case was not multifarious, or that it was properly submitted regardless of appellants’ objection.
While it has been held that merely evidentiary facts may sometimes be grouped together in one issue, it has long been held that each ultimate issue must be separately submitted if objection is made by either party to a duplicitous or multifarious submission. In addition to the authorities submitted in our original opinion we call attention to the following: Thompson v. Robbins, 157 Tex. 463, 304 S.W.2d 111 (Syl. 6); Buss v. Shepherd, Tex.Civ.App., 240 S.W.2d 382 (Syl. 6); Theobalt v. Wiemann, Tex.Civ.App., 104 S.W.2d 589 (Syl. 3) ; France, et ux. v. Graves, Tex.Civ.App., 48 S.W.2d 438; Stinnett, et al. v. Paramount-Famous Lasky Corp. of N. Y. et al., Tex.Com.App., 37 S.W.2d 145; Lumbermen’s Reciprocal Ass’n v. Wilmoth, Tex.Com.App., 12 S.W.2d 972 (Syl. 4). In the case of Abrams v. Bradshaw, Tex.Civ.App., 2 S.W.2d 917, Judge Vaughan, who earlier wrote the opinion in Rick v. Farrell, supra, stated that special issues shall be submitted distinctly and separately, and answered separately.
It has been held that only definitions of terms which appear in the charge should be given. Fort Worth & D. C. Ry. Co. v. Burton, Tex.Civ.App., 158 S.W.2d 601 (Syl. 12); Wichita Valley Ry. Co. v. Anderson, Tex.Civ.App., 48 S.W.2d 361 (Syls. 3 and 9); Derrick & Mosely, et al. v. Southwestern Portland Cement Co., Tex.Civ.App., 18 S.W.2d 720.
Appellee’s motion for rehearing is overruled.