Court Opinion

ID: 9834398
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 23:33:24.228825+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:44:14.582945
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
The appellee in his motion for rehearing urges again the counter propositions presented in his brief upon which he relied for the affirmance of the judgment of the trial court, and insists that this court 'was in error in holding that the findings of the jury, that the consideration for the notes had failed to the extent of 38 per cent., was in conflict With the findings of the jury, that there was no fraud, and required a reversal of the judgment, because appellee says there may be a failure of consideration under proper pleading without fraud, and the finding of the jury that there was a partial failure of consideration, was not a finding that there was fraud, especially after the jury had found there was no fraud.
It is true that under a proper pleading there could be failure of consideration without fraud, but it is also true that fraud may constitute a failure of consideration; and, as we understand the pleadings of appellant, he alleged the fraudulent agreements, acts, and conduct of appellee as' a defense to the notes sued on, and alleged that the agreements, acts, and conduct of appellee disclosed a total failure of consideration. Therefore the facts alleged constituted the failure of consideration as pleaded. The pleading of total failure of consideration includes a partial failure, and we concluded that the finding of the jury that there was a failure of consideration to the extent of 38 per cent, was irreconcilable with their finding that there was no fraud. Stoker v. Fugitt et al. (Tex. Civ. App.) 102 S. W. 743; First National Bank of Amarillo et al. v. Rush (Tex. Com. App.) 246 S. W. 349; Pullman Co. v. Castleberry et al. (Tex. Civ. App.) 251 ,S. W. 518.
Under Vernon’s Sayles’ Ann. Civ. St. 1914, art. 1990, the court—
“Where a special verdict of the jury is rendered * * * shall, unless the same be set aside and a new trial granted, render judgment thereon.”
In Four brotherhood Oil Co. v. Kelley et al. (Tex. Civ. App.) 235 S. W. 604, the court says:
“Where a case is tried upon the submission of special issues, the answer of the jury, unless set aside, is conclusive as between the parties as to the facts found. See article 1986. And this is true, even though the verdict may be contrary to the undisputed evidence. Waller v. Liles, 96 Tex. 21, 70 S. W. 17.”
If we were in error in holding that the. findings of the jury were in conflict, then it follows, inasmuch as the issue of partial failure of consideration was pleaded and submitted, that the jury found from the evidence that the facts pleaded and testified to by appellant did not constitute fraud, but did constitute a partial failure of consideration to the extent of 38 per cent, which amount should have been deducted from the sum appellee recovered, and the judgment for that reason did not follow the verdict.
Motion overruled.