Court Opinion

ID: 9833864
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 23:06:25.664838+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:44:08.119328
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
[7] Appellee insists that, since this cause is reversed and remanded because of error in the proceedings relating exclusively to appellant’s suit in reconvention, and since there appears to be no error in the judgment *215for appellee on its suit for recovery upon the account, the judgment of this court reversing and remanding the c.ase in its entirety ought to be reformed and the judgment of the lower court as to appellee’s recovery affirmed; the judgment as to the re-convention suit of appellant alone being reversed and remanded.
This position seems to be in harmony with rule 62a of the Courts of Civil Appeals of Texas, and also with the court decisions. Rule 62a (149 S. W. x); Needham v. Cooney, 173 S. W. 979; Railway Co. v. Enos, 92 Tex. 577, 50 S. W. 928; Benjamin v. Railway Co., 49 Tex. Civ. App. 473, 108 S. W. 408.
Under rule 62a and the above-cited authorities, the propriety of affirming in part and reversing and remanding in part is not doubtful. But believing it probably more equitable to hold the entire case in abeyance until a correct determination of appellant’s damage suit in reconvention could be made, we decided upon the original consideration of the case to reverse and remand as a whole. However, we are now persuaded to adopt the views expressed in appellee’s motion for rehearing.
The case very clearly embodies two distinct and independent suits: That of appel-lee for recovery on open account; and that of appellant for damages arising from wrongful attachment and garnishment. The effect of our original opinion was that the first of these causes was correctly tried and that the error requiring us to reverse and remand inhered exclusively in the other. We con- ' elude that it is in accord with the requirements of justice and the fixed practice to affirm the judgment as to appellee’s recovery upon its account, and to reverse and remand the judgment in its favor on appellant’s suit against it in reconvention. We must presume this course will work no injustice to appellant. A full hearing of the issue of his indebtedness to appellee has been presented to the court and jury, and it has been determined by them in a manner free from substantial error. . He ought not, therefore, to have an opportunity to contest the same ground again; but, having a right only to contend for damages occasioned by the attachment, that independent and separable feature alone should be tried again.
Accordingly, the motion for rehearing is sustained, and the judgment of this court, will be reformed and judgment rendered affirming the judgment of the lower court awarding appellee judgment upon its account against appellant and reversing and remanding the cause for a new trial of appellant’s reconvention for damages alleged to have resulted from the attachment and garnishment proceedings alone.
Affirmed in part, and reversed and remanded in part.