Court Opinion

ID: 9828053
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 18:02:48.530083+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:42.298027
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
We make the following statement as correcting statements in our former findings of fact and opinion herein, and as a more concise statement of the material facts to be considered at this time:
The first suit referred to, which was affirmed upon appeal, was upon the contract set out in the findings of fact in this case. This suit is also founded on said contract. In the first suit the appellants recovered for the work which they did under said contract up to the time of filing said suit. In this suit appellants sought to recover for their alleged profits under said contract from the time of the filing of their petition in the first suit to the filing of their petition in this suit. In their original petition herein they alleged that a verbal contract had been entered into by the parties for a period of 20 years to publish the reports upon the terms shown in said written contract, and that, at the expiration of each 2 years, a written *1053contract was to be executed covering tbe next two years.
Tbe defendants in tbeir original answer pleaded tbe judgment in tbe former suit as a bar to plaintiff’s cause of action herein; and in tbeir amended answer upon which this case was tried also alleged that the contract between tbe parties bad been rescinded by mutual agreement, and other defenses, not necessary to be here mentioned. The trial court upon tbe first trial of' this case held with tbe defendants as to tbeir plea in bar as to all items that could have been set up by amendment in tbe original suit. This court affirmed said judgment, but upon writ of error the same was reversed on the ground that plaintiffs were not required to set up by amendment the breaches of the contract occurring, between the filing of their suit and the trial of the same. Nothing else material to this case was determined by the 'judgment of the Supreme Court in said cause. After this case had been reversed upon writ of error, appellants amended and made additional parties, as shown in seventh finding of fact in opinion heretofore rendered.
Appellants insist in theiir motion for rehearing, as they did upon original hearing of this cause, that appellees by pleading the first judgment in bar of appellants’ cause of action in the first trial of this suit, and by failing to allege in said first trial the rescission of said contract by mutual agreement, are now estopped from making such defenses in this cause. In fact, they insist, in effect, that the judgment of the Supreme Court herein has settled all issues in their favor, except as to the amount of their recovery, and say that said judgment amounts to an instruction to the court below to enter judgment for them. In support of their contention, they cite Menifee v. Hamilton, 32 Tex. 495, and Sprinkel v. McCord, 129 S. W. 379. In the latter ease this court specifically directed what judgment should be entered by the court below. Nothing of the kind was done by the Supreme Court in rendering the opinion in this case. 100 Tex. 320, 99 S. W. 701, 8 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1197. In the case of Menifee v. Hamilton, supra, the court said: “There is some doubt in the mind of the court as to how far this case should be held to be res adjudicata, having been before this court at its January term, 1854, and decided in 11 Tex. 718.” An examination of this case in the two reports above referred to will show that in the first suit there was a contest between the title granted to Tomas Buentillo and the title granted to Señora Carabajal. In the first suit Hamilton claimed under the Buentillo grant and Menifee claimed under the Carabajal. The Supreme .Court in the first opinion held that the Buen-tillo grant was the superior title, and reversed and remanded the case. Thereupon Menifee amended' and set up the plea of three-year limitation under the Buentillo grant, which he had attempted to destroy in the first suit. In that case the court expressed doubt as to whether the former judgment amounted to an instruction to the lower court to render judgment as between the parties or to try the case de novo. AVe construe the judgment of the Supreme Court in this case as an instruction to try the case de novo. The issue of cancellation of the contract by mutual agreement was not determined on the former appeal.
The trial court rendered a general verdict for the defendants and did not file, and was not requested to file, any conclusions of law or fact; and, for reasons stated in the former opinion herein, as well as for those here stated, we cannot say that the judgment of the trial court was erroneous. For which reason the motion for rehearing is overruled.
Motion overruled.