Court Opinion

ID: 9833299
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 22:36:03.719396+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:44:01.386244
License: Public Domain

On Motions for Rehearing and to Certify.
The point is made in the motion for rehearing that the construction we gave to the word “necessary” in subdivision 29a of article 1995, added by Acts 40th Leg. 1st Called Sess. (1927) c. 72, § 2, as necessary in order to prevent a multiplicity of suits, would authorize the joinder in the.resident county of one of the defendants of all proper parties to the suit; that under this construction the section. worked no change in the law as it then existed; and that we have therefore virtually construed the section away.
We do not so construe our holding. However, in order to be clear in the matter we limit our holding to the particular case before us, which is one of joint liability for a single cause of action. As stated in the original opinion, we do not believe the Legislature intended to require a plaintiff having a single joint and several cause of action against several defendants residing in different coun-ties to bring separate suits in the county of the residence of each defendant. Our attention is called to Fox v. Cone (Tex. Com. App.) 13 S.W.(2d) 65, in this connection. We have carefully examined the opinion in that ease and can see no conflict in our holding and the holding there. Nor do we find any conflict between our holding and that of any other Texas case, which our investigation has disclosed.
The point is also made that the liability of the master and the servant for a tort of the latter is not strictly speaking a joint tort. The opinion in the Carmichael Case, cited in our original opinion, held to the contrary in a case involving separability where the master sought to remove to the federal court. The situation there was very analogous to that here, and upon the authority of that case we hold the master and servant to be joint tort-feasors for the purpose of determining the question of joint liability.
Both motions denied.
Motions overruled.